LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



©j^ap.— --- ©ajujng^t !f a. 

Shelf .....uS:.7S 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



Errors of Campbellism. 



BEING 

A RBVIEW 

OF AI.I. THE 

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS OF THE SYSTEM OF FAITH 

AND CHURCH POLITY OF THE DENOMINATION 

FOUNDED BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 



BY 



T. McK. STUART, A. M., D. D., 

A MINISTER OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 






CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STOWK. 

NHW YORK: HUNT & BATON. 

1890. 



^^ 



^^t.s 



§n 



Copyright 

BY CRANSTON & STO\A/^E, 

1890. 




PREFACE. 



For many years the writer has believed that there 
ought to be accessible to the ministry and member- 
ship of the Methodist Episcopal] Church a review 
of the theories of Campbellism, sufficiently complete 
clearly to present and fully meet their errors. As a 
system of religious formalism, it is the most aggress- 
ive of modern times, and has had, in the half cen- 
tury of its existence, a phenomenal growth. This 
would be a matter of congratulation to all true Chris- 
tians were it not for the fact that its theories place it 
squarely in conflict with other evangelical Christians. 
It teaches doctrines that, if true, make other Christian 
denominations fundamentally and radically wrong, 
and therefore it is of necessity brought into conflict 
with them. 

It is a notable fact that wherever this system se- 
cures a permanent foothold there is in such com- 
munity, even outside of this denomination, a leaven 
of disbelief in spiritual religion; and in such com- 
munities it is usually quite difficult to secure anything 
more than a merely formal profession of religion. It 
is customary with their ministry, and especially with 
their evangelists, to hold up to public ridicule every- 
thing looking towards the emotional or experimental 



4 PREFACE. 

in religion; proclaiming, at the same time, a religion 
of outward obedience alone. 

It must not be inferred, from these remarks, that 
it is thought there is an absolute want of all spirit- 
uality with those who profess this faith. Such is not 
the case. There are very frequently to be found 
among them Christians of deep spirituality ; but they 
are not such because of the system, but in spite of it. 
The earnest soul-examination, the deep heart-search- 
iog, the fervent penitence, the faith that requires com- 
plete self-surrender, belong in no sense to this creed; 
and necessarily so, for were these required, as ante- 
cedents to baptism for remission of sins, there would 
be also required, as the outcome of baptism under 
such circumstances, an equally clear spiritual experi- 
ence of the removal of condemnation, and of full ac- 
ceptance with God; and then the fact of baptism 
would not be the sole evidence to the sinner of his 
salvation. And besides, if these intense feelings of 
sinfulness and sinful need must precede pardon, then it 
follows that, on their theory, without these there can be 
no genuine baptism, and the baptism must be repeated 
whenever such previous conditions do truly exist. 

It is because of this incompatibility that their teach- 
ers uniformly oppose the sinner^s praying for forgive- 
ness. Praying might lead to intense earnestness in 
seeking Christ, and this would necessarily demand a 
witnessing Spirit to remove the felt condemnation. 
So it must not be allowed, else the system is put 
in jeopardy. 



PREFACE. 5 

Baptism for the remission of sins, administered to 
the earnest and thoughtful and to the frivolous and 
careless alike^ must be held as valid for this pur- 
pose^ or there would be inextricable confusion in the 
theory, or frequent baptisms, until the sinner is found 
in a genuine state of belief and penitence. This 
would be inconvenient. Hence spirituality is no es- 
sential element in the system. 

Many of our ministry and people hold to the ex- 
ceedingly curious notion that if error is let alone it 
will die of itself; and the best w^ay to overthrow this 
system of error is to disregard it and its methods of 
interpretation and preach the truth. Error has been 
a long time in dying under this process. When it 
has been let alone, it has invariably triumphed. So 
that this policy has proven a failure ; and it is high 
time a more successful one was adopted in its stead. 
And the additional advice to preach the truth w^ill, if 
fully conformed to, set aside the policy of letting 
error alone. Error, to be eflFectually met, must be 
designated. There are many people who can not see, 
or will not see, the incompatibility of two proposi- 
tions until they are placed side by side ; and any 
fencing against designating the error, will simply, in 
these cases, make the truth ineffectual. 

There is a sickly sentimentality, quite extensive 
in the evangelical Churches, that leads many to sink 
all differences of opinion, even in vital matters, and 
to brother everything that calls itself by the name of 
Christian, however heterodox it may be. And this 



6 PREFACE. 

same sentiment is also very much hurt at any in- 
cisive antagonizing of error, especially if it is so de- 
fined that there can be no mistake as to what is meant. 
While there is no need of invective or biting sarcasm 
in dealing with error, there is need of open, firm, 
decided, unequivocal opposition to it, in the interest 
of that charity that seeks the glory of God and the 
supreme good of the race of men. 

It is also deemed important by the writer, that 
our ministry and people should not, for the sake of 
mistaken courtesy, yield to the discourteous claim of 
these people to take to themselves, as theirs by right, 
the distinctive appellation of the Christian Church. 
They are not the Christian Church, else the Christian 
Church in the Christian ages has been a failure, most 
absolute and unequivocal. To style them such, be- 
cause they demand it, is discourteous to the great body 
of Christians throughout the world. It is a very dif- 
ferent thing from admitting that they are Christians, 
which can most cheerfully be done when the claim is 
not made that they are the Christians. 

The antagonism between the doctrines of Meth- 
odism and those of Campbellism is so radical that 
there can be no compromise, and will necessarily, in 
the future, be open conflict. It is well, therefore, that 
every Methodist minister prepare himself to meet in- 
telligently and successfully this form of error. The 
writer hopes that in this work he will be of some as- 
sistance in this direction. 

T. McK. STUART. 

Corning, Iowa, 1890. 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter I. 

THE FOUNDERS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

Thomas and Alexander Campbell — A Brief Sketch of their 
Lives — The Evolution of the Central Idea, Baptism, as a Con- 
dition to Pardon of Sin — The First Society in the New 
Faith — 1823 the Date of the Inauguration of this New Re- 
form, Page 13 

Chapter II. 

the central idea of CAMPBELLISM. 

Justification by Water Baptism — It is the Keynote of Doctrines 
and Polity — It leads to a Denial of the Immediate Operation 
of the Holy Ghost — The Doctrine Papistic in Fact — Canons 
of Church of Rome and Campbellism compared — A Slight 
Modification of the Old Doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- 
tion — It teaches Justification by Works — Antagonistic to 
the Fundamental Principle of the Reformation — Sola fides 
justificaty 21 

Chapter III. 

THE DIALECT OF CAMPBELLISM. 

" Reign of Heaven," "Aliens," " Naturalized Citizens "— " In 
Christ" baptized by Water—" Obedience of Faith "— " Con- 
fession" — The "Action of Baptism " — " Gospel " used in same 
Limited Manner — " The Loaf in the House of the Lord," . 35 

Chapter IV. 

THE THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 

Sacrifices for the Remission of Sins under the Old Testament 
Dispensation — Trespass Offerings cited — Sin of our First 
Parents, and the Theory paralleled by these — Positive Insti- 

7 



8 CONTENTS. 

tutes under the Dispensation of the Baptist — Baptism elc 
Repentance, not €lg Remission — Use of lianriC,^ — Confession 
before Baptism in John's Baptism — Jesus forgives Sin under 
Dispensation of John without " Positive Institutes " — 
When was the Kingdom of Heaven set up ? ... Page 44 

Chapter V. 

THE COMMISSION. 

The Commission according to the Four EvangeHsts — To dis- 
ciple made Synonymous with Conversion — Baptism and 
DiscipHng the same — St. Mark xvi, 16, not Water Bap- 
tism — The Syriac on the Same — Wanting in Genuineness — 
Commission according to St. Luke — Remission of Sins upon 
his Name — 'ETr^Commission, according to St. John — The 
Prerogative of remitting Sins, 61 

Chapter VI. 

CAMPBELLISM ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE. 

Faith put before Repentance — Mistake concerning the Nature 
of Faith — If Faith and Repentance were placed in their 
Right Relation, they must change their Interpretation of 
Acts ii, 38 — Assert but One Kind of Faith — Faith purifies the 
Heart — Pure Hearts before pardoned therefore, 73 

Chapter VII. 

THE SPECIAL TERRITORY OP THE THEORY I ACTS II, 38. 

Claim to be at the Door of the Gospel Dispensation — Setting 
up the Kingdom and laying down the Law of Induction 
into this Kingdom — ''Be converted," ''reform,'' "turn," 
baptized same thing — Contradicted by Facts — For Remission 
of Sins and Baptism not connected by elg — 'Ett^, upon the 
Name, means upon Faith in the Name — Water Baptism a 
Profession of Faith in Christ, 81 

Chapter VIII. 

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 

Attempt to prove the Doctrine by the Case of Cornelius — An 
Argumentative Boomerang — Baptism of Paul, Acts xxii, 16 — 



CONTENTS. 9 

Ananias^s Commission, Acts ix, 17 — *'Wash away thy 
Sins" — Baptize in the Middle Voice — The Syriac on the 
Same — "Washing by Prayer" the Teaching of the Pas- 
sage — Paul's Account of his Commission — Paul not sent to 
baptize, but to preach the Gospel — Baptisms of the Acts of 
the Apostles immediate — Household of Cornelius — Simon 
the Sorcerer — Lydia — Philippian Jailer — John's Disciples at 
Ephesus, Page 90 

Chapter IX. 

BAPTISM INTO DEATH, INTO CHRIST, AND BAPTISMAL WASHINGS. 

Rom. vi, 3, 4 ; Col. ii, 11, 12 ; 1 Cor. iii, 13 — Difference between 
baptism into Christ and into the Name of Christ — Perversion 
of 1 Cor. xii, 13 — One Baptism, Eph. xiv, 5— Baptismal Wash- 
ings, Eph. V, 25, 26 — Baptism assumed in these cases, 1 Cor. 
Yif 11 — Cleansing in Heb. x, 20 — Attempt to draft Titus 
iii, 5, into Support of the Theory — Gal. iii, 27 — An Author 
his own Best Interpreter, 104 

Chapter X. 

SALVATION BY BAPTISM, BY WORKS, BY " OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.'* 

1 Peter iii, 21, saved by Water, or by the Ark through the Water, 
which? — Proper Interpretation, cj /ca/, "by which (Spirit) 
also ;" 6l^ vSarog, through the Water — Justification by Works, 
and James ii, 21-24 — Paul and James reconciled — The At- 
tempt to reconcile on Campbell's Theory — Gal. ii, 16 — 
" Obeying the Gospel " not Baptism, 116 

Chapter XI. 
Campbell's seven causes of justification. 

Confusion in Thought — Five of his Causes but One Cause — 
*' Works " not a Cause — Faith then the Only Conditional 
Cause — Eepentance and Godly Sorrow — Godly Sorrow the 
Sorrow of a Baptized Person — ''Bath of Kegeneration," so- 
called, an Exegetical Mistake — "Pure Water," in Heb. x, 
22, not Water for cleansing — In the New Birth Water called 
by Mr. Campbell the Mother — John iii reviewed — The New 
Birth Essentially Spiritual, 128 



10 CONTENTS. 

Chapter XII. 

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 

Attempts to support the theory by the Teaching of the Primi- 
tive Christian Fathers — By the Creeds and Symbols of Prot- 
estant Churches — Also Eminent Christian Teachers of 
the Reformation— Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Clarke, and 
Others, Page 139 

Chapter XIII. 

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 

It declares the Whole Evangelical Dispensation a Failure for 
Centuries — The Doctrine makes it impossible to account 
for Virtue and Holiness in Other Christians — Contradicts 
Christian Experience — It requires Rebaptism in the Back- 
slider, and when the Conditions have not been intelligently 
fulfilled — It can not be preached and applied to all Condi- 
tions and Circumstances — It makes the Outbreaking Back- 
slider a Child of the Kingdom — It makes that a Condition 
to Pardon of Sin a Person can not perform for Himself, . 160 

Chapter XIV. 

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VERSUS WORKS. 

Article IX, Methodist Articles of Religion, misrepresented — 
The Question the Justification of the Sinner — What he 
must do — James and Paul again — Baptism Works and not 
Works — Justification by Works, that is, by Baptism, con- 
tradicted by many Passages of Scripture — The Meaning of 
Faith only — Justification of Abraham the Type of the Jus- 
tification of All — Mr. Braden's Attempt at the Explanation 
of Rom. iii and iv, 175 

Chapter XV. 

CAMPBELLISM ON THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

Consistency requires that they deny it— Mr. Campbell's Con- 
fusion and Contradiction of Himself — Defines Himself more 
fully in the Debate with Professor Rice — An Attempt to 
maintain Experimental Religion after Some Sort — Review 
of Campbell's Objections — Objections aimed at an Imag- 
inary Idea, • .... 186 



CONTENTS. 11 

Chaptkr XVI. 

OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 

The Immediate Operation of the Spirit does not imply Inspira- 
tion or ]\Iiracle-working Power — His Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 
and Seventh Arguments assume the Point in Dispute a 
Feiitio Principii — The Personal Spirit promised — The Com- 
forter — His Offices defined — An Illegitimate Deduction made 
from those Passages that ascribe Regeneration, Sanctifica- 
tion, and Salvation to the Word — Paul's Commission mis- 
interpreted, Page 200 

Chaptkr XVII. 

OFFICE AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

Their System beset with Difficulties — The Spirit reproves, re- 
generates, baptizes, cleanses, purifies, seals, sanctifies, 
anoints, witnesses, comforts, helps — Lydia, " whose Heart 
the Lord opened" — Regeneration and "born from Above,'* 
"born again," "begotten of God," Same Thing— Perversion of 
John iii, 8 — " Born of that he receives " a Supposed Diffi- 
culty — Titus iii, 5, explained — Quickening by the Spirit, . 213 

Chapter XVIII. 

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

An Efibrt to limit to Apostolic Days — The Twelve Apostles 
only baptized at Pentecost contradicted by the Scrip- 
tures — The Promise of the Father the Baptism of the Holy 
Ghost — A Perversion of 1 Cor. xii, 13 — The Kendering 
"pour out from my Spirit" to meet the Difficulty — Rom. vi, 
3, 4; Col. ii, 11, 12, Spiritual Baptism, 229 

Chapter XIX. 

IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT CONTINUED — SYNONYMS OF 

BAPTISM. 

Wash, cleanse, purify, sanctify, seal, anoint — Cleansing by the 
Word refuted — So also saving by the Gospel — Gospel de- 
fined— Ps. li, Ezek. xxx\d, 25-27— The Witness of the Spirit, 
This alone Sufficient Testimony to pardon — The Holy Ghost 
as an Abiding Comforter — Numerous Forms of Expression 
for the Immediate Influence of the Spirit — Objections to the 



12 CONTENTS. 

Doctrine of Campbellism — It destroys the Efficacy of 
Prayer — It leaves the BacksUder without Evidence of Par- 
don, Page 243 

Chapter XX. 

OBJECTIONS OF CAMPBELLITE TEACHERS TO METHODIST DOCTRINES 

AND POLITY. 

A System of Proselytism — Objection to the Name Methodist 
Episcopal Church — A Plea for Unity— The Name Christian 
Church not Divine — Christians, all Followers of Christ 
such — The True Name of the Church, Church of God — The 
New Name of Followers of Christ, *' Sons " of God — As- 
sault upon Article VIII of Methodist Discipline — Camp- 
bellism on Eeconciliation refuted. Article II sustained — 
The Sinner seeking Christ — The Penitent Publican's 
Prayer, 257 

Chapter XXI. 

CAMPBELLISM ON CREEDS, ETC. 

Originally aimed at Christian Unity — Disavows Creeds, but 
has one — A Creed Exceedingly Narrow — Will exclude the 
Greatest Number of Christians of any Creed in Christen- 
dom — Their Church Polity: Campbell its Author — Their 
Discipline — Probationers in their Church — Their Assurance 
and Confidence, 277 



ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE FOUNDERS OF CAMPBEIyLISM. 

In entering upon the investigation of that system 
of religious doctrine or faith called Campbellism, it 
is proper and right that we give a brief sketch of its 
founder^ or, more properly, founders; for it was the 
evolution not of one mind alone, but of two — those 
of father and son, Thomas Campbell and Alexander 
Campbell. The doctrinal system of this so-called 
reformation is the sole product of these two men, in- 
somuch that since their day it has rigidly adhered to 
the principles taught by these men ; and in no mate- 
rial respect, and in scarcely any minor points also, is 
there the slightest particle of difference between the 
representative teachers of to-day and the great ex- 
pounders of its creed at first. 

It may be said, without fear of successful denial, 
that Alexander Campbell has impressed his doctrinal 
ideas, and even the methods of elucidating and en- 
forcing them, upon his followers as no other great 

religious leader in modern times has done. He is a 

13 



14 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLTSM. 

very forceful illustration of the power possessed by a 
man of commanding genius and force of character 
over his fellow-men. Creeds of other Christian de- 
nominations have usually been the productions of 
many minds^ and the result of the deliberations of 
councils of learned men. But not so Campbellism; it 
is the work of one, or, at most, of two minds. 

The assumed rejection of all human creeds gave 
the Campbells a peculiarly favorable opportunity to 
impress their doctrinal ideas upon those to whom they 
were addressed, as the very essence of Bible teaching. 
The marvel is, that the astute founder of the system 
and his more intelligent followers have deceived them- 
selves with the belief that their doctrine is anything 
more than another human creed, though not presented 
to the world in articles of religion or definite formu- 
las of doctrine — a creed as really commanding assent 
of every one who seeks to ally himself with them, 
as any creed in the broad domain of Christendom. 

Alexander Campbell, the man who more especially, 
by his force of character, executive ability, and firm 
faith in his own convictions, was the founder of the sys- 
tem under consideration, was the eldest son of Thomas 
Campbell, and was born in County Antrim, Ireland, 
September 12, 1788. 

Thomas Campbell became, in early life, a preacher 
in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and while in 
the old country was engaged in either preaching or 
teaching. In 1807 he emigrated to America, leaving 



FOUNDERS OF. 15 

his family still in Ireland, to follow him subsequently 
to his new home, when once he had provided for 
them. In 1808, however, his family, under the con^ 
duct of Alexander, embarked for America, but were 
shipwrecked on the coast of Scotland, which caused 
them to tarry in that country for awhile, until, under 
auspices more favorable, they might essay to start 
again for their new home. While in Scotland, he was 
brought into contact with many leading minds in Scot- 
tish religious circles, and enjoyed the opportunity of 
about one yearns tuition in the University of Glasgow. 
In September, 1809, they safely reached New York, 
and shortly after joined their father in Western Penn- 
sylvania. 

Thomas Campbell, on his arrival in America, iden- 
tified himself with the Seceder Synod and Presbytery 
of Chartres, in Western Pennsylvania, which his son 
Alexander likewise did upon his arrival. In a short 
time after his uniting with this Presbytery, Thomas 
Campbell was arraigned for a violation of the usages of 
the Church with regard to the Lord^s Supper, and was 
condemned, whereupon he appealed unto the Synod, and 
was released from condemnation, because of informali- 
ties in the proceedings ; but the matter was at the same 
time referred to a committee, which reported, censur- 
ing him. This caused him to withdraw from the Se- 
ceders, and in 1809 he and other disaffected parties or- 
ganized ^^ The Christian Association of Washington,^^ 
in Western Pennsylvania. The purpose of this soci- 



16 EEEORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ety, from its ^^ Declaration ^^ of principles formulated 
and published, seems to have been an effort to fra- 
ternize Christians of divergent views upon the funda- 
mental truths of the Christian Scriptures, and was cer- 
tainly a commendable undertaking. The fourth 
article of the Declaration especially disclaims the pur- 
pose of creating a new Church organization. It is one 
of the marvels of human inconsistency that an institu- 
tion that had its origin in a protest against party 
spirit and dogmatism in the Church, should culminate 
in one of the most imperiously dogmatic of the re- 
ligious organizations of modern times, and at the same 
time foster a spirit of controversy that is most un- 
qualifiedly condemned in the preamble of the ^^ Dec- 
laration.^^ 

Alexander Campbell began preaching in 1810. 
He does not seem at first to have received any spe- 
cial authorization from any society. Church, or asso- 
ciation. 

About this time Thomas Campbell made a propo- 
sition to unite with the Synod of Pittsburg of the 
Regular Presbyterian Church, but was refused. 
Among the reasons assigned was this, that Alexander 
Campbell ^^had been allowed to exercise his gifts of 
public speaking without any regular ordination.'^ 
This refusal resulted in the foundation of the ^^ Chris- 
tian Association of Brush Run,'' on the 4th of May, 
1811. After the organization of this small denomina- 
tion, for such it was, Alexander Campbell was, by its 



FOUNDERS OF. 17 

first council, session, or whatever it may be styled, 
licensed to preach. 

On the 12th day of June, 1812, he was baptized 
by immersion, by Elder Luce, of the Baptist Church, 
after having made, as he supposed, the proper con- 
fession, namely: ^^I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God.^^ And it was about this time he began 
to regard faith as simply ^Hhe belief of the Scrip- 
tures on the testimony of the apostles/^ 

In the fall of 1813, Alexander Campbell and the 
Brush Run organization formed a union with the 
Red-Stone Association of the Baptist Church. In 
August, 1823, he withdrew from this Baptist Associa- 
tion, in order to escape arraignment and trial by it, 
and expulsion therefrom for heresy. It was in the 
fall of this same year that he had his discussion, in 
the State of Kentucky, with Mr. McCalla, in which 
he, according to his own statement,^ first fully and 
maturely espoused his distinguishing tenet of baptism 
as a necessary condition in order to the pardon of sin. 

It may be said that the system, as a new doctrinal 
adventure, was now successfully launched upon the 
arena of conflict with all other sister denominations; 
and that which had its birth professedly as a protest 
against ecclesiastical domination, dissension, and dog- 
matism, came into existence as a very theological Ish- 
mael, its hand against all others. 

*" Christian System," p, 180. 

9 



18 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

Mr. Campbell began, in the spring of 1823, the 
j)iiblicatiou of a periodical, which he entitled The 
Christian Baptist^ which, however, ultimately gave 
place to The Millennial Harbinger. These papers 
were the exponents of his new theories ; and in Ken- 
tucky, Western Pennsylvania, South-eastern Ohio, 
and Western Virginia, the new Church grew quite 
rapidly, by accessions from the Baptist Church and 
the Christian Church, so-called, embracing many of the 
followers of James O'Kelly, and that branch of Arian 
Baptists usually called '' New Lights/^ 

Alexander Campbell was a kind of theological 
gladiator. He rejoiced in a theological discussion as a 
means of disseminating his peculiar views. And at 
first he was quite successful, inasmuch as his oppo- 
nents were not well enough acquainted with his system, 
and the course adopted in its maintenance, to combat it 
successfully. They struck in the dark, while he was 
able, through the published polemical theology and 
formularies of his opponents, to know just where and 
how to make his assaults. His enthusiastic followers 
boast much of his prowess in this direction, and affect 
to believe that he was victor in every contest ; but his 
debate with Professor N. L. Rice, of the Presbyterian 
Church, held in Lexington, Kentucky, was anything 
but a victory for this new system. In this long dis- 
cussion, which was fully published, Campbellism, in 
its distinctive tenets and methods of defense, was en- 
tirely brought to light, so that future defenders of 



FOUNDERS OF. 19 

evangelical truth were advised as to just what they 
were called upon to meet. 

The founder of this system of faith^ in his work 
entitled ^^ The Christian System/^ has given to the 
world his doctrinal views^ as well as the polity of his 
Church. We shall have occasion to make frequent 
reference to this work, which presents the system com- 
pletely as devised, elucidated, ^nd promulgated by its 
author. And every careful reader of the work will 
observe, by comparison with the present polity and 
doctrinal teachings of its societies, as represented by 
the leading preachers of the denomination, that '' The 
Christian System '^ is a full and complete disciplinary 
and doctrinal guide for the people of this faith, as much 
so as any discipline or confession of faith of any sister 
Church, although it has not been formally adopted by 
the Church at large as such ; for, according to the teach- 
ing of its founder, each particular society is independ- 
ent of all others. (See ^' Christian System,^' p. 73, 
sec. 4.^) And therefore it is always possible for 



*" Still, all these particular congregations of the Lord, 
whether at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, though equally inde- 
pendent of one another as to the management of their own 
peculiar affairs, are, by virtue of one common Lord, one faith, 
one baptism, and one common salvation, but one kingdom 
or Church of God, and, as such, are under obligations to co-op- 
erate with one another in all measures promotive of the great 
ends of Christ's death and resurrection." 

The edition of " The Christian System " from which the 
author quotes, is the fourth edition, published at Cincinnati. 
The definition of Church polity begins with p. 72. 



20 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

them to deny tlie existence among them of any au- 
thoritative discipline^ such as Churches that have a 
central or connectional form of government have. 
But it nevertheless is true that there is no society 
among them that is not governed by the disciplinary 
rules laid down by Mr. Campbell in " The Christian 
System.^^ 

It will also be seen^ by the discriminating reader 
of his chapters on ^^ Church Order ^^ and '' Christian Dis- 
cipline/^ that he expects the doctrines he inculcates to 
form the bond of union among Churches. It is there- 
fore a very natural evolution of faith in his followers 
to hold that their interpretations of the Scriptures are 
infallibly correct, since they have so eminent an ex- 
ample set for them in their great leader. 

A system that arraigns all Christendom as pro- 
foundly and fundamentally wrong, must, in the very 
nature of the case, predicate a great deal upon the as- 
sumed correctness of its interpretations of Scripture. 
And these must be met by an appeal to the truth and 
reason. No flattering unction, that error, left to 
itself will perish, will meet this case. It is a large, 
vigorous, healthy system of religious formalism, that 
makes no hesitation in assaulting other denominations. 
And if spiritual Christianity would maintain its own, 
it must not take refuge in that coward's plea of. Let 
error alone and preach the truth. The truth is often- 
times most successfully preached by showing where 
the pitfalls of error are. 



TEE CENTRAL IDEA. 21 



CHAPTER II. 

THE CENTRAL IDEA OF CAMPBELMSM. 

The key-note of this system of faith is the doc- 
trine of baptism by water as a necessary condition to 
the remission of sins. This doctrine Alexander Camp- 
bell specifically states in the following language :^ 
^^ The apostle Peter, when first publishing the gospel 
for the Jews, taught them that they were not for- 
given their sins by faith, but by an act of faith, by a 
believing immersion into the Lord Jesus. '^ His fol- 
lowers, in their discussions with representatives of 
other confessions of faith, usually affirm it in the fol- 
lowing language : " Christian baptism is a necessary 
condition in order to the remission of the past sins of 
the penitent believer.^^ The writer has had several 
joint discussions with different representative men 
among them, and this was, in all material respects, 
their method of stating this fundamental doctrine ot 
their creed. By Christian baptism they mean dipping 
in water in the name of Christ, or what they are 
pleased to call immersion. By ^^ condition ^^ they 
mean the personal act of the free moral agent, by 
which he accepts of the salvation provided him in 



'Christian System," p. 194. 



22 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

Christ. By ^^ necessary ^^ is meant that without which 
no one can be saved^ whatever else he may have or may 
not have. Remission of sins they regard as the same 
as pardon, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wash- 
ing away of sin,* and the like. By '' past sins ^^ they 
mean the sins committed before baptism. In their 
dialect the unbaptized is an ^^ alien,^^ and as such has 
not the right of prayer or petition. In this phrase 
'' past sins ^^ they think they avoid the force of the 
argument that, if baptism is a condition to pardon, it 
ought to be repeated at every recovery from backsliding. 
This fanciful distinction of sinners into aliens and 
rebellious members of Christ^s kingdom, is a sheer 
invention, to counteract the doctrinal embarrassments 
they are thrown into by the system. By penitent be- 
liever they mean the believer who, after believing, is 
penitent. Faith must precede repentance, and with 
them is simply the belief of testimony. ^' No testimony, 
no faith ; for faith is only the belief of testimony. ^^ f 
This doctrine, thus briefly defined, is the key-stone 
to the whole doctrinal superstructure of Campbellism. 
It is to this all the system has been conformed ; their 
views of faith and prayer, the operation of the Holy 
Ghost, the gifts of the vSpirit, the witness of the Spirit, 
assurance, reconciliation, inherited depravity, even 
Church polity, — all are interpreted in the light of this 
idea. For example, if the immediate office of the 



^"Christian System," p. 187. ^ Id, p. 113. 



THE CENTRAL IDEA. 23 

Holy Ghost in conviction and conversion were ac- 
cepted as it is by other evangelical Christians^ and if 
the Spirit^s direct witness to conversion were allowed, 
they could not well, in the face of the positive testi- 
mony of those who had received the assurance of par- 
don without baptism, explain how such could take 
place without the previous fulfillment of this assumed 
^' necessary condition ;^^ hence they must deny the im- 
mediate operation of the Spirit, and hold that the 
Avitness of the Spirit, as claimed by others, is a delu- 
sion. Because of this logical necessity their ministry 
generally are unsparing in their ridicule of the idea 
of the direct witness of the Spirit. In this, however, 
they do not exhibit the moderation and good taste of 
Mr. Campbell, for it is difficult to make out clearly 
his views on this matter from his writings. At one 
time he seems to deny the doctrine, at another to ad- 
mit it. 

But one thing is certain, he denied the immediate 
operation of the Spirit upon the heart of the sinner 
in conviction and conversion; but how the Holy 
Ghost can impress the heart of a child of God so as 
to give help, strength, joy,* and not be a direct witness 
to his salvation, is something difficult to understand. 
For, most evidently, if the child of God receives the 
Holy Spirit as a " helper,^^ '' comforter,^^ '^ sanctifier,^^ 
giving " love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, 



-*' Christian System," pp. 64, 65. 



24 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,^^ as Camp- 
bell seems to teach,* he must be able to recognize this 
as a fact in his experience, and therefore be able to 
testify to it. But in this we have simply the illus- 
tration that his followers are very much more ultra 
Campbellites than the founder of the system ; for the 
only ^^joy, peace, goodness,^^ etc., they will admit of 
is entirely subjective, or such as the mind obtains 
through its own beliefs and convictions. For ex- 
ample, the advocate of this doctrine believes that he 
must first believe the Bible ; secondly, repent of liis 
sins ; thirdly, confess that '' Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God,^^ and be baptized on this confession. This 
having done, his conscience approves him in it, be- 
cause he has done what he believes to be right; and 
now, upon this purely subjective conviction, he be- 
lieves himself to be in the kingdom of God and an 
heir of heaven ; this furnishes him a degree of rest, 
satisfaction, or peace. It is altogether in the mind, 
and every proposition may be false upon which it is 
founded, and yet the same confidence exist. The dev- 
otee of Islam or papistic absurdities may have, and 
often does have, the same. 

If there is no immediate witness of the Holy Spirit, 



* Christian System," p. 66. See also pp. 354-356, Vol. II, 
''Richardson's Memoirs of A. Campbell." His biographer 
here proves that Mr. Campbell accepted the belief that '' those 
who are sons of God receive the Holy Spirit promised through 
faith." See Appendix A. 



THE CENTRAL IDEA. 25 

then his assurance of pardon is altogether subjective, 
and to be sure of it he must postulate his infallibility in 
interpreting the Scriptures. Hence there can be but 
little marvel that the advocate of this faith is sure ho 
is right and all others wrong ; for his conviction that 
he is a child of God depends upon the certainty that 
he is not mistaken in his interpretation. But this 
will be treated of in all its bearings when we come to 
deal w^ith the errors of this system^ relative to the 
offices of the Spirit. AVe have called attention thus 
fully to this^ at this juncture, that the reader may 
see how relatively all-important is this central idea, 
and, in the discussion of it, realize that it does not 
stand or fall for itself alone, but for a whole system 
of belief that is built up around it. 

The doctrine of baptism as a condition to the re- 
mission of sin is papistic, in fact. While they dis- 
claim this, and are very bitter in denunciation of those 
who so charge them, yet it is impossible to minds not 
under the bonds of the system to distinguish the dif- 
ference. They and the papists quote the same pas- 
sages of Scripture, and, allowing for the diflFerence in 
ecclesiastical systems, put the same construction upon 
them. As, for example, Matt, xvi, 18: ^^Thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it V^ This is 
used by them to show that the Church was not founded 
until the day of Pentecost ; that Peter opened the door 
to it by his sermon on that occasion in the supposed 



26 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

announcement of the condition of baptism for the re- 
mission of sins. And in reference to the confession 
that Peter made, '' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God/^ which called forth the Savior's remark, 
it is assumed that this confession is the ^^rock'' upon 
which Christ proposed to establish his Church. Hence 
they require it of all candidates for baptism. 

Along with this passage from the Gospel of Mat- 
thew, they usually join one from John xx, 23 : '' Whose- 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and 
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained !'' This, 
they claim, is the commission as given by John, and 
that the disciples were to remit sins by baptism. When 
pressed to define this latter passage, they usually de- 
fine it as the conferring power to remit sins by bap- 
tism, which evidently makes a perpetual priesthood 
out of the ministry, and confers upon them marvelous 
powers. Compare the following canons of the Church 
of Rome with A. Campbell's claims for the adminis- 
trator in the rite of baptism (Council of Trent, Seventh 
Session :) 

Canon IV: ^^ If any one saith that the sacraments 
of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but 
superfluous, and that without them, or without a de- 
sire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, 
the grace of justification — though all the sacraments 
are not indeed necessary for every individual — let him 
be anathema." 

Canon YI: ^^ If any one saith that the sacraments 



THE CENTRAL IDEA. 27 

of the New Law do not contain the grace Avhich they 
signify, or that they do not confer the grace on those 
who do not place an obstacle therennto, as though 
they were merely outward signs of grace or justice re- 
ceived through faith, and certain marks of Christian 
profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst 
men from unbelievers, let him be anathema/' 

Canon YIII : '' If any one saith that, by the said 
sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred 
through the act performed {ex opere operato), but that 
faith alone in the divine promises suffices for obtain- 
ing the grace, let him be anathema/^ 

On page 128 of the Catechism of the Council of 
Trent we have the following : " The remission of all 
sin, original and actual, is therefore the peculiar effect 
of baptism. That this was the object of its institution 
by the Lord and Savior, is a truth clearly deduced 
from the testimony of St. Peter, to say nothing of the 
array of evidence that might be adduced from other 
sources. ' Do penance,^ says he, ^and be baptized, every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of your sins.^ ^^ 

Further on we read : '' But in baptism not only is 
sin forgiven, but with it all the punishment due to 
sin is remitted by a merciful God ;^^ and "' Baptism 
remits all punishment due to original sin in the next 
life.^^ 

On page 123 we have the following: ^^If, then, 
through the transgression of Adam, children inherit 



28 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

the stains of primeval guilty is there not stronger 
reason to conclude that the efficacious merits of 
Christ the Lord must impart to them that justice and 
those graces which will give them a title to reign in 
life eternal ? This happy consummation baptism alone 
can accomplish. The pastor, therefore, will inculcate 
the absolute necessity of administering baptism to in- 
fants/^ * 

Beside this place the following from A. Camp- 
bell (Christian System, pages 194 and 195), and it 
could be duplicated from most any of their authors. 
Campbell says : ^^ The apostle Peter, when first pub- 
lishing the gospel to the Jews, taught them that they 
were not forgiven their sins by faith, but by an act 
of faith, by a believing immersion into the Lord Jesus. 
That this may appear evident to all, we shall examine 
his Pentecostian address and his Pentecostian hearers.^' 

^^ Peter, now holding the keys of the kingdom of 
Jesus, and speaking under the commission for con- 
verting the world, and by the authority of the Lord 
Jesus, . . . may be expected to speak the truth, 
the whole truth, plainly and intelligibly to his breth- 
ren, the Jews. He had that day declared the gos- 
pel facts, and proven the resurrection and ascension 
of Jesus to the conviction of thousands. They be- 
lieved and repented. . . . Being full of this faith, 
they inquired of Peter and other apostles what they 



* Note.— The writer is indebted to Dr. G. W. Hughey's 
work on ''Baptismal Remission" for this compilation. 



THE CENTRAL IDEA, 29 

ought to do to obtain remission of sins. They were 
informed that, though they now believed and re- 
pented, they were not pardoned, but must ^ reform 
and be immersed for the remission of sins J . . , This 
act of faith was presented as that act by which a 
change in their state could be effected; or, in other 
w^ords, by which alone they could be pardoned/^ 
Again, page 197, he says : '^ All these testimonies con- 
cur with each other in presenting the act of faith — 
Christian immersion frequently called conversion — as 
that act inseparably connected with the remission of 
sins/^ Again, page 208 : " Remission of sins, or 
coming into a state of acceptance, being one of the 
present immunities of the kingdom of heaven, can not 
be Scripturally enjoyed by any person before im- 
mersion/^ 

These quotations we might multiply to weariness, 
were it necessary. But wherein consists the difference 
between the averments of Mr. Campbell and the 
canons of Rome? Both affirm that baptism is neces- 
sary to the pardon of sin. Both lay stress on the 
^' act performed^^^ only Rome is the more liberal of 
the two. With Rome a little water will do, but 
Campbellism demands enough for an immersion, and 
an immersion at whatever cost. Both claim that St. 
Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
and both claim that Peter's successors use these keys 
in admitting persons into this kingdom. There is some 
little difference between them as to just who are the 



30 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

successors of St. Peter, but this difference is not fun- 
damental. They agree in the fundamentals. 

It will be seen also, by the parallels above given, 
that this doctrine is but a slight modification of the 
old doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It is true 
that this charge is resented with considerable vehe- 
mence by the advocates of this doctrine, yet, as in the 
case before given, it is very difficult to make a dis- 
tinction. The two parties use the same passages in 
identically the same way. Dr. Pusey, of the Anglican 
High Church party, may be regarded as very good 
authority as to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
In ^^Holy Baptism,^^ P^g^ 48, he comments on Titus 
iii, 5 : ^^ ^ The washing of regeneration and renewing 
of the Holy Ghost,^ i. e., a baptizing accompanied by 
or conveying a reproduction, a second birth, a resto- 
ration of our decayed nature by the new and first life, 
imparted by the Holy Ghost. The apostle has been 
directed both to limit the imparting of the inward 
grace by the mention of the outward washing, and to 
raise our conceptions of the greatness of this second 
birth by the addition of the spiritual grace. The gift, 
moreover, is the gift of God in and by baptism : every 
thing but God's mercy is excluded — ^not by works of 
righteousness which we have done ^ — they only who 
believe will come to the ^ washing of regeneration f yet 
not belief alone, but God, ^ according to his mercy, 
saves them by the washing of regeneration f by faith 
are we saved, not by works ; and by baptism we are 



THE CENTRAL IDEA, 31 

saved^ not by faith only, for so God hath said ; not 
the necessity of preparation, but its efficiency in 
itself is excluded ; baptism comes neither as ' grace of 
oongruity/ nor as an outward seal of benefits before 
conveyed ; we are saved neither by faith only, nor by 
baptism only, but faith bringing us to baptism, and 
by baptism God saves us/^ 

Put beside this some utterances of Campbell :* 
^^ Wherever water, faith, and the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are, there will be found the 
efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes, as God first gave 
the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the 
efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is figura- 
tive ; but it is not a figure which misleads, for the 
meaning is given without a figure, viz., immersion for 
the remission of sins. And to him that made the 
washing of clay from the eyes the washing away of 
blindness, it is competent to make the immersion of 
the body in water efficacious to the washing away of 
sin from the conscience.^' Again : f ^^ Being born of 
water in the Savior^s style, and the bath of regenera- 
tion in the apostle^s style, in the judgment of all writers 
and critics of eminence, refer to one and the same act, 
viz., Christian baptism. Hence it came to pass that 
all the ancients used the word regeneration as synony- 
mous with immersion,^' Similar quotations might be 
produced in numbers, showing that the difference 



* '' Christian System," p. 215. t Id. 



32 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

between the advocates of baptismal regeneration and 
those of baptismal remission is more a difference of 
words than of real principles. Campbell and his fol- 
lowers quote without hesitation the writings of the 
advocates of baptismal regeneration as supporting their 
view, yet when charged with advocating baptismal 
regeneration they become very indignant, and accuse 
^Hhe sects/^as they style other Christian denomina- 
tions, of traducing them. A. Campbell, in a foot-note 
on page 272 of the '^ Christian System,^^ attempts to 
meet the charge and explain the difference. The ex- 
planation amounts to this: The advocates of baptismal 
regeneration contend for a regeneration effected by 
baptism alone, while Campbell contends that baptism 
is but the last step in the process. The so-called dif- 
ference upon which this explanation is grounded does 
not exist in fact. In the case of adults the advo- 
cates of baptismal regeneration require, as antecedent 
conditions, faith and repentance; also, belief in the 
presence of the Holy Spirit, imparted in the act of 
baptism. In the case of infants, the difference may 
exist ; but the doctrine does not by any means apply 
to infants alone. 

This doctrine also teaches justification by works. 
This is also disavowed by them, but with no better 
reason than the two former. Baptism they are always 
ready to set forth as a command, and the observance 
of it as obedience; and when their theory of doctrine is 
met by the repeated declaration of the apostle Paul — 



THE CENTRAL IDEA. 33 

viz., that justification is by faith ^^ without works/^ 
and ^^ without the deeds of the law^^ — they are ever 
ready to quote St. James to the contrary, leaving a 
positive conflict between these apostles, when a rea- 
sonable method of interpretation would show complete 
agreement. 

A. Campbell, in treating of the justification of sin- 
ners, says : ^ ^^ As an act of favor it is done by the 
blood of Jesus, as the rightful and efficient cause; by 
the faith as the instrumental cause; by the name of 
Jesus the Lord as the immediate cause; and by 
works as the demonstrative and conclusive cause/' 
In what sense this jargon of supposed distinctions ex- 
plains the justification of the sinner, it is difficult for 
any one not looking at the Scriptures through a theory 
to understand. The question still remains for expla- 
nation, How is the sinner justified by works of right- 
eousness, and not by works of righteousness, at one and 
the same time? Until this question is answered, the 
charge of teaching a doctrine of justification by works 
must stand unimpeached. 

It is at once apparent to the student of Church 
history that this scheme of doctrine is in square antag- 
onism, in this respect, to the fundamental doctrine of 
the Reformation, and in harmony with Rome on the 
ground of justification. The watch-cry of the Refor- 
mation was, Sola fides jiistificat — faith alone justifies; 



'Christian Syhtem," p. 183. 



34 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

while Rome shouted back, not faith alonCy but works 
also. Hageubach (History of Doctrines, Vol. II, 
page 281) says : ^^Both Roman Catholics and Protest- 
ants ascribe to faith a justifying power in the case 
of the sinner ; but there was this great difference be- 
tween them, that the former maintained that, in ad- 
dition to faith, good works are a necessary condition 
of salvation, and ascribe to them a certain degree 
of meritoriousness ; while the latter adhere rigidly 
to the proposition, ' Sola fides justificat J ^^ If this emi- 
nent German ecclesiastical historian had sought to 
define the doctrinal conflict between Campbellism and 
other evangelical denominations, he could not have 
found better words to distinguish them than the words 
given above. Campbellism always defines baptism as 
a necessary condition to the salvation of the sinner, 
and they class it with the ^^ works ^^ spoken of by St. 
James ii, 24. It is throughout a system of salvation 
by works and nothing else ; and while they do not as- 
cribe to works meritoriousness, yet they make them 
essential antecedently to justification. And if they are 
^^ good works,^^ merit can not be denied to them any 
more before than after justification. God ascribes 
merit to all good works; but good works are wrought 
in faith, and faith justifies ; good works, therefore, be- 
long to a justified state, and not antecedently to it. 



DIALECT OF. 35 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DIAIvKCT OP CAMPBKLIvISM. 

This system bas a doctrinal dialect peculiarly its 
own, and by which it may be readily recognized any- 
where. This dialect is made up of Scripture phrase- 
ology^ used in a certain dogmatic sense, which dis- 
tinctively indexes the characteristic interpretation of 
this school in dealing with certain passages of Scrip- 
ture. This its author calls '' purity of speech/^ 
^^ speaking of Bible things by Bible words.^^ * But it is 
plain to the unsophisticated that this Bible terminology 
is given a meaning different from that attached to it 
by others. Bible terms may be used in a certain ar- 
bitrary sense that is not legitimately to be attached to 
them, and thereby be made to propagate error of the 
most destructive consequences and character. 

In this Scriptural phraseology, used in this pecu- 
liar sense, we have another forceful illustration of the 
unbounded influence of this man Campbell; for the 
dialect is his own style of speech beyond all question. 
We doubt it possible in the history of the entire 
Church of the Christian centuries to parallel this with 
another example exactly similar. And yet his follow- 
ing affect to believe that they, in their system, are 



*" Christian System," p. 125. 



36 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

independent of all human leadership. Their creed is 
the Bible, and their doctrines are infallible deductions 
from the Scriptures. This must be so, else their 
claim to take the Scriptures as their sole guide falls 
to the ground, and they only take their interpretation 
of the Scriptures, which is just what all other Chris- 
tians do, and no more. 

Let us consider some of this characteristic termi- 
nology. For example, '^ reign of heaven, ^^ as a trans- 
lation of the phrase '^ kingdom of heaven,^^ first pro- 
posed by Mr. Campbell, is now with great unanimity 
used by the doctrinal teachers of this system. Under 
this form of translation they usually follow Mr. 
CampbelPs discussion of it, under the heads of 
" Name,'' " Constitution,'' " King," " Subjects,'' 
^^ Laws," ^' Territory." An entirely fanciful treat- 
ment, made use of to make it co-ordinate with a pre- 
conceived system of doctrine. But of this more sub- 
sequently. 

According to this dialect the unbaptized are styled 
^^ aliens," while the baptized, by parity of reasoning, 
however backslidden, however besotted in sin, are 
naturalized citizens, and may be saved by repentance, 
faith, and prayer, at any time, while the " alien " can 
not be saved without baptism. The Scriptures do use 
the term ^'aliens," but never to signify the unbap- 
tized. In Eph. ii, 12, and iv, 18, the term undoubt- 
edly refers to the Gentiles in their condition anterior 
to the publication of the gospel, and as compared with 



DIALECT OF. 37 

Israel under the Levitical dispensation. One thing, 
however, is certain. The Scriptures nowhere recog- 
nize the unbaptized person as an alien simply because 
he is unbaptized. 

^^In Christ/' is another Scriptural phrase that is 
given in this system a peculiar signification. A. 
Campbell says : ^ ^^ JVhen are persons in Christ ? I 
choose this phrase in accommodation to the familiar 
style of this day. No person is in a house, or in a 
ship, or in a state, or in a kingdom, but he that is 
gone, or is introduced into a state, into a kingdom ; so 
no person is in Christ but he who has been intro- 
duced into Christ. . . . But the phrase, into 
Christ, is always connected with conversion, regenera- 
tion, immersion, or putting on Christ. Before we are 
justified in Christ, live in Christ, or fall asleep in 
Christ, we must come, be introduced or immersed into 
Christ.'^ What can teach more explicitly than this 
that baptism is that which puts the sinner into Christ, 
and that the baptized state is the state of being ^' in 
Christ ?'' An interpretation that contains a whole 
brood of destructive fallacies. 

If baptism puts the sinner into Christ, then all 
who are baptized are in Christ, whatever may be their 
present morals. If immorality w^ill put the baptized 
person out of Christ, then this whole theory falls to the 
ground. If it does not, then the backslider is sure 



*" Christian System," pp. 188-189. 



38 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

of final salvation; for, according to Rom. viii, 38, 39, 
^* Nothing can separate us from the love of God, 
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;^^ and 2 Cor. v, 17: 
*^ If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature/^ It 
does not help the matter at all to say, '' We require 
sincere repentance and faith in order to baptism ;^^ for 
these qualities may have existed, and the individual 
be now ''\\i the gall of bitterness and bond of in- 
iquity.^^ He is either in Christ or out of Christ. If 
in Christ, he is safe; if out of Christ, how does he 
now get into Christ? By baptism? If so, then con- 
stant re-baptism will be required. If not now by 
baptism, then baptism does not put all sinners into 
Christ. To this absurdity does this misapplication 
of the Scriptures inevitably lead. The whole theory 
is fallacious. Water baptism is not baptism into 
Christ, but baptism into the name of Christ; that is, 
into a profession of his name for the remission of sins. 
Baptism into Christ is entirely spiritual, and does not 
result in this congeries of absurdities. 

^^ Obedience of faith,^^ and ^^ obeying the gospel, '^ 
are choice phrases in the dialect of this system. They 
mean, as used by them, but one thing, namely, bap- 
tism. As, in the golden age of the Roman empire, 
all roads were said to lead to Rome, so, according to 
these teachers, all routes of Scripture exegesis inev- 
itably lead to baptism. And yet there is not one sin- 
gle passage that either directly or inferentially refers 
to baptism as ^' the obedience of faith,^^ or ^^ obeying 



DIALECT OF. 39 

the gospel/^ This is a very pertinent illustration of 
the persistency of preconceived opinions in causing 
individuals to see the Scriptures through the medium 
of a theory. The obedience of faith is faith itself; or, 
in other words, faith is obedience to the command to 
believe in, on, or upon Christ. In Rom. x, 16, we 
have ^^ obeying the gospel ^^ defined: ^^But they have 
not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who 
hath believed our report?'^ In what respect did they 
not ^' obey the gospel ?^^ Plainly in not believing the 
^^ report ^' of the prophets. '^ Obedience to the faith,^^ 
in Rom. i, 5, is obedience to the whole system of faith. 
Yet despite these plain and obvious interpretations of 
these phrases, they have become a veritable doctrinal 
shibboleth of the followers of Campbell, and they in- 
vite sinners to believe, repent, and confess Christ, and 
obey the gospel. 

The word ^^ confession ^^ has also a peculiar sig-. 
nificance attached to it in this dialect. With them it 
means the oral confession that *^ Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God.^^ Alexander Campbell says : * ^^ The 
only apostolic and divine confession of faith Avhich 
God the Father of all the Church, and that upon 
which Jesus himself said he would build it, is the 
sublime and supreme proposition. That Jesus of Naz- 
areth is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, This 
is the peculiarity of the Christian system, its specific 



' Christian System/' p. 58, 



40 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

attribute/^ This^ theu^ is confession, according to their 
teaching, and is one of the requisites of baptism, and 
one of the works of righteousness. That such an oral 
confession was ever required by the apostles as a pre- 
requisite to baptism, has not one particle of proof in 
the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles. The only 
passage they will attempt to cite is Acts viii, 37, which is 
rejected as wanting in genuineness by the Revised Ver- 
sion. Critical scholars have for a long time with perfect 
unanimity held its spuriousness, an addition that crept 
into some manuscripts from an ecclesiastical formula. 
The words dfjto?.oy€co and bixoXoyiaave rendered indif- 
ferently confess, iwofess, coiifessioiiy profession^ and refer 
to faith or belief in almost every instance, without any 
formulated statement or oral declaration. Confession 
^^ with the mouth ^^ is only spoken of in Rom. x, 9, 10, 
and it requires an unlimited stretch of the imagination 
to put into the words, as here used, the formal con- 
fession that Mr. Campbell and his following require. 
Again, ^^the action of baptism ^^ is a prominent 
technic in this dialect. Mr. Campbell, in ^^The Chris- 
tian System,^^ devotes a chapter to this subject. By 
this word ^^ action,^' it is sought to maintain the posi- 
tion that the word in the original defines a specific 
action, rather than a result to be brought about by 
different acts or influences. What is the ^^ action of 
baptism ^^ as defined by their mode of procedure? 
Whose action is it? It is evidently the action of the 
administrator after the immersion is partially secured 



DIALECT OF. 41 

by the action of the subject. At this juncture the 
individual, passive in the hands of the administrator, 
is actively dipped by liini, or immersed and emersed by 
him. The object is not by this description to bur- 
lesque their mode of procedure in immersion, so-called, 
but to briug out clearly to logical discrimination this 
^^ action ^^ idea. Baptism is the passive receiving of 
water, administered in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, as a Christian rite ; and the active 
party, so far as physical action is concerned, is the 
administrator. And when Mr. Campbell talks ot 
baptism as ^^ an action commanded to be done,^^ * he 
talks of a command that never was given. The com- 
mand to baptize was only given to apostles and ad- 
ministrators — the ^^ action ^^ was to be their action. 
The subjects of baptism were commanded to be bap- 
tized — i, e.j receive baptism — and this whole theory of 
^^ action,^^ and talk about the ^^ action of baptism,^^ is a 
pertinent illustration of that want of ^^ purity of speech '^ 
that Campbell so unsparingly condemns in others. 

With the same limited meaning the term ^^gospeP^ 
is used. With them it means, preaching baptism in 
order to the remission of sins. Whatever of repent- 
ance, faith, love, or duty a sermon may have in it, if 
it have not baptism as a condition to pardon, it is not 
the gospel.f In this case it is true, as in the case of 
^^ obedience ^^ before spoken of, that there is not a 



*'' Christian System," p. 55. 

tSee '^ Memoirs of A. Campbell," pp. 208-218, 224, 229. 

4 



42 ERRORS OF CAMPELLISM. 

single passage that refers to baptism by water as any 
part of the gospel. The fact is, the gospel was 
preached during Christ's stay here upon the earth, 
and that was before the institution of Christian bap- 
tism according to Mr. Campbell. Again, the gospel 
was preached unto Abraham, Gal. iii, 8 : '' And the 
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the hea- 
then through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.^' 
So also was it preached in the wilderness, Heb. iv, 2 : 
^^ For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto 
them.^^ Certainly, in this gospel as well as in that 
preached by Christ unto '' the poor ^^ (Luke vii, 22), 
there w^as no water baptism as a condition to its bene- 
fits. Again, Paul especially disclaims baptism as a 
part of the gospel of remission, 1 Cor. i, 17: "For 
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos- 
pel.^' What is here set by antithesis to the gospel ? 
Water baptism. It is, therefore, no part of the gospel 
of salvation to sinners. It belongs to those, who are 
saved, as a symbol of the grace whereby they were 
saved; to wit, spiritual baptism, which is a fundamen- 
tal part of the gospel of Christ, for it is purification 
from sin. 1 Cor. xii, 13 : " By one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- 
tiles, whether we be bond or free, and have all been 
made to drink into one spirit.'^ 

" The loaf in the house of the Lord ^' is a some- 
what unique and original method of presenting the 



DIALECT OF. 43 

communion of tbe Lord's Supper. This idea of ^^ one 
loaf * is founded on a fanciful rendering of the Greek 
apzo^^ in 1 Cor. x^ 16^ 17 — a word which, in the great 
majority of instances, is translated bread. But Mr. 
Campbell conceived that, at the ancient or primitive 
communion occasions, each member broke a piece from 
the common '^ loaf So he translates apzo^ " loaf ^' to 
accord with this idea. Justin Martyr, in his first Apol- 
ogy (ch. 67, A. D. 140) gives an account of the Chris- 
tian assemblies, in which he says of the elements of 
the Eucharist : '' There is a distribution to each.'' Of 
course, this is a matter of but minor moment ; but it 
serves to point the illustration of Campbell's doc- 
trinal dialect, and the unparalleled authority his opin- 
ions held, and do now hold, over his followers. 



•"Christian System," pp. 303-331. 



44 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 

Alexander Campbell and his followers, in 
order to make their scheme of doctrine co-ordinate 
with unity of purpose and plan in the divine economy 
under all dispensations and in all ages, have pro- 
mulgated the theory of salvation by obedience to 
positive institutes or precepts. The theory in brief 
is this : Under each dispensation God enjoined some 
positive act of obedience as the final condition upon 
which remission of sin was procured by the penitent 
believer. But we prefer to let Mr. Campbell him- 
self set forth his theory of doctrine. He says :* 
^^ From Abel to the resurrection of Jesus trans- 
gressors obtained remission of sins at the altar 
through priests and sin-offerings; but it was an im- 
perfect remission as respected the conscience. ^For 
the law/ says Paul (more perfect in this respect than 
the preceding economy)^ ^ containing a shadow only 
of the good things to come, and not the very image 
of these things, never can, with the same sacrifices 
which they offered yearly, forever make those who 



• '* Christian System," p. 179. 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 45 

come to them perfect. Since being offered^ would 
they not have ceased? because the worshipers, being 
once purified, should have no longer conscience of 
sins/ ^^ This passage is remarkable, especially for 
the assumption that ^^ transgressors obtained remission 
at the altar through priests and sin-offerings ^^ under 
pre-Christian dispensations. There is not one particle 
of proof offered for it. In fact, there is not one single 
passage in the Old Testament that enjoins the offering 
of a sacrifice as a condition to the pardon of sin. 
Sacrifices were generally offered by priests; hence 
the only thing that could be properly the act of the in- 
dividual would be the bringing of the sacrifice. Again, 
sacrifices were offered for families, or for the people at 
large; therefore if pardon of sin were obtained through 
them, it was, in the vast majority of instances, pred- 
icated on the mental act, the state of the mind or 
heart of the worshiper, which must be a state of re- 
pentance and faith. No ; this is a lame attempt to 
offer support to this theory of positive institutes as 
being required in all ages in order to the remission 
of sin. The Old Testament nowhere sustains it. 
Salvation in numerous instances is predicated on 
faith, trust, repentance, prayer, calling unto the Lord, 
and these are each and all mental acts. 

In a discussion wdth a minister of this denomina- 
tion, where the utterances of the psalmists and proph- 
ets with reference to prayer for the remission of sins 
was cited by the writer, the attempt was made to 



46 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

break the force of these proofs by saying faith and 
prayer^ and faith and calling upon God^ is not faith 
alonCj as the Methodist Discipline, in Article IX of 
the Articles of Religion, teaches. To this the reply was 
made that it was the faith in the prayer, and not the 
faith and the prayer, that brought the remission of 
sin. Wherever the heart exercised an implicit faith 
in God, there, at that very moment, salvation was 
realized. Prayer, or calling upon God for pardon of 
sin, is proof of the fact that pardon was not suspended 
on obedience to positive institutes, and proof that it 
was suspended upon a state of mind and heart, which 
was essential in prayer, w^ithout w^hich there could be 
no genuine prayer. We wall give a couple of examples 
out of the Old Testament out of the large number 
that might be given: Psalms Ixxxvi, 5: ^^For thou 
Lord, art good and ready to forgive; and plenteous 
in mercy to all them that call upon thee.^^ Isa. Iv, 
6, 7 : ^^ Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, 
call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked for- 
sake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: 
and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abun- 
dantly pardon. ^^ These explicitly set forth the con- 
dition upon which pardon was obtained by sinners 
under the Old Testament dispensation. 

Sometimes the trespass offerings enjoined in 
Leviticus, chapters iv and v, are cited as examples 
of sins forgiven upon the offering of sacrifices, but 



THEORl OF ^POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 47 

the unbiased reader will see that these sins of igno- 
rance, that are atoned for by certain sacrifices, are 
not the sins from which sinners generally need to be 
justified. The Levitical law nowhere offers any sup- 
port to this theory, and it must be badly pressed for 
a foundation to stand upon through the fifteen hun- 
dred years of the Mosaic dispensation, to turn to the 
trespass offerings as an example of positive institutes 
as conditions to the remission of sin. 

Again, this theory seeks to present a parallel be- 
tween the fall of our first parents and the recovery 
of the sinner. Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr. 
G. AV. Hughey, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
states the theory in full, of which we will quote 
enough to bring out in clear view this particular 
phase of their doctrinal teaching. He says : 

*^^Let us now analyze the successive steps ^^ — that 
is, of the fall — ^^ and learn when she became guilty in 
the sight of God. 

^^1. There was a preacher of falsehood and diso- 
bedience ; falsehood and disobedience were preached 
and heard ; but she had not become guilty, she had 
not fallen. 

'^ 2. Next she disbelieved God in believing the 
tempter; but she had not yet fallen. Suppose she had 
said to him, ^ What you say is reasonable — indeed I 
believe it — but God has said, '^ You shall not eat of it,^^ 



• ''Hughey and Braden Debate," pp. 189, 190. 



48 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

and I will obey God/ would she have fallen ? Cer- 
tainly not. It would have been an error of the judg- 
ment, but not a sin of the heart. 

^' 3. She desired the result of disobedience and be- 
came dissatisfied with the reward of obedience ; but 
she had not yet fallen or become guilty. Suppose she 
had said to the tempter, ' Sir, I feel a strong desire to 
eat such pleasant fruit, and to become as God, know- 
ing good and evil ; I do n^t see why I am restricted 
in this way ; but God has said, " You shall not eat of 
it,^^ and I will not eat,^ w^ould she have fallen ? Cer- 
tainly not. 

^^4. She next arrayed the best part of her nature 
not already in rebellion against God, in opposition to 
his law. She resolved to disobey, and as the act and 
volition were in her case simultaneous nearly, — the 
Bible makes them so, and says, ' She ate, and her eyes 
were opened and she was ashamed,^ or guilty; ^ then 
she fell, and not till then.^^^ 

Now, as to the recovery of the sinner, we have this : 

^^ 1. The gospel must be preached, and man must 
hear it. He is not yet pardoned. 

'' 2. He must believe the gospel, or have faith. 
He is not yet returned; he is not yet pardoned. 

^' 3. Man must repent, he must cease to love sin. . . . 
He is not yet pardoned. . . . 

" 4. Since man has been living in rebellion against 
God, he must now confess Christ before men, as did 
the eunuch to Philip ; but he is not yet saved. 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 49 

^^5. He must next obey the positive command of 
God, or submit his will to the will of God in his 
positive ordinauce — baptism/^ 

Let us look at the first side of this attempted par- 
allel, and see how many absurdities are compressed in 
the compass of its assumptions. Acccording to the 
second item in the category, Eve could believe the 
tempter and disbelieve God, and yet have no sin in 
her heart. To make God willfully a liar, is more 
than ^^ an error of judgment.^^ We are told that in 
addition to this ^^she desired the result of disobe- 
dience,^^ and yet was not fallen. A monstrous doctrine, 
squarely in contradiction to the teaching of Jesus, 
Matt. V, 21-27, where hatred and lust are made murder 
and adultery. Desire sin in the heart, and yet not sin ! 
How completely in conflict with all our ideas of the 
nature of sin, that there must be the overt act before 
there can be sin ! The fact is, sin existed before the 
act w^as put forth, and had something occurred to 
prevent the act, there would not have been any less 
of sin in the heart. Sin existed in Eve when she dis- 
believed God's word, and doubted his goodness in the 
prohibition given. And her recovery from the guilt 
of sin was secured by her heart-faith in the divine 
faithfulness and goodness in the provision to be made 
for the forgiveness of sin. But were it conceded that 
the first sin consisted only in an overt act of disobe- 
dience, it does not follow that the restoration shall be 

through one formal act of obedience. The restoration 

5 



50 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

must have underlying it a principle from which all 
obedience may spring, and that principle is faith, or 
heart-obedience, '^ the obedience of faith/^ 

Under the dispensation of the Baptist, Campbell 
and liis followers teach that baptism became the posi- 
tive institute for the remission of sin, and in this 
there was a preparation for the Christian dispensation. 
Braden, on the design of baptism, says : * " Our 
fourth argument is, that John the Harbinger was 
preparing the way for the coming of Christ; baptism 
was for the remission of sins, and in this he prepared 
the way for the great law of pardon in Christ. 
Mark i, 4: ^ John did baptize in the wilderness, and 
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission 
of sins.^ Luke iii, 3 : ^ John came into all the coun- 
try about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance 
for the remission of sins/ Matt. iii. 5, 6 : ^ Then 
went out to John all Jerusalem and Judea, and all 
the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of 
him in Jordan, confessing their sins.^ This baptism 
was one which could only be administered to peni- 
tent believers of John^s preaching. To all such it 
was for the remission of sins, for Matthew assures us 
he required confession before baptism. Then followed 
baptism for the remission of their sins.^^ 

Here we have the last step from the supposed 
positive institutes of the patriarchal and Mosaic dis- 
pensation to the Christian dispensation, and the theory 



»"Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 193. 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 51 

is equally without foundation here. When its un- 
proved assumptions are taken away, it stands out as a 
sheer fabrication. 1. It is sought to connect John^s 
baptism with remission of sins in causal relation; that 
is, his baptism was for, meaning in order, to remission 
of sins. Now, not one passage that is cited by Mr. 
Braden, and none other that can be cited, connects 
these two — baptism and remission of sins — as ante- 
cedent and sequent, cause and effect. One passage 
will forever set this matter at rest. Matt. iii. 11: ^^I 
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but 
he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose 
shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Here we have 
baptism connected with repentance by the preposition 
er'c, the same preposition that,, according to Campbells 
teaching, connects baptism and remission in Acts ii. 
38. John specifically states that the baptism he per- 
formed was £f c — for, or in order to — repentance. Now, 
what is the obvious and dommon-sense interpretation 
of this language ? This evidently : ^^ I indeed baptize 
you with water into [a profession of] repentance." John 
preached the baptism of repentance e^c — for (into) — 
the remission of sin. The repentance was for — or, in 
order to — remission of sin; baptism was for — or, in 
order to — repentance. Now, let it be borne in mind 
that it was what John preached that was for remission 
of sin. He preached a baptism, not a baptism of 
water, but a baptism of repentance. Repentance itself 
baptized into the remission of sin. It was a repent- 



52 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ance that was crowned with faith. Acts xix, 4: 
^^ Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the bap- 
tism of repentance, saying unto the people that they 
should believe in him that should come after, that is 
Christ.^^ Now, whatever construction we give to the 
phrase, ^^ baptism of repentance,^^ it is an unwar- 
ranted liberty to construe it as baptism into remis- 
sion. It can not be into repentance and into remis- 
sion at the same time. 

The words, 6a7[Ti^co, 6d.7:Te(T[xa.^ and SanTcafjib^y in 
the original Greek, are by no means limited in their 
signification to a submergence into something, or an 
overwhelming with something. In fact, anything 
that could bring about a changed condition had the 
power of baptism, as grief, calamities, sufferings, in- 
iquities, drunkenness, and the like. Hence Jesus 
says, Luke xii, 50 : ^^ I have a baptism to be baptized 
with ; and how am I straitened until it be accom- 
plished!^^ So also Matt, xx, 22, 23, and Mark x, 
38, 39. Christ^s cup, baptism. The baptism by drink- 
ing the cup of suffering in sacrifice for sin. Isa. xxi, 
4, in the Septuagint, reads : " My heart panted, iniq- 
uity baptizes me.^^ To these may be added, from 
classical and patristic sources in the Greek, an in- 
definite number of like examples, as: 

* Chariton — Baptized by desire. 
Plutarch — Baptized by worldly affairs. 
Chrysostom — Baptized by passion. 

* Dale's "• Johannic Baptism^* pp. 208, 209. 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 53 

Themistius — Baptized by grief. 
Josephus — Baptized by drunkenness. 
Chrysostom — Baptized by poverty. 
Proelus — Baptized with wantonness. 
Plotinus — Baptized with diseases, or with arts of ma- 
gicians. 

Conon — Baptized with much wine. 

Justin Martyr, who suffered martyrdom about the year 
A. D. 166, says, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew: 
*'By reason therefore of this laver of repentance and 
knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account 
of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we 
have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he 
announced is alone able to purify those who have re- 
pented ; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns 
which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profit- 
less to you. For what is the use of that baptism that 
cleanseth the body alone. Baptize the soul from wrath 
and from covetousness, and lo, the body is pure." 

These Greeks, speaking and using the Greek lan- 
guage as their vernacular, most certainly understood 
the poNver of this word 6a7:Ti^co, and these instances 
show how wide is the range given to the application 
of the term. And Justin the Martyr sho^vs how re- 
pentance will '^ baptize the soul from wrath, covetous- 
ness, envy, hatred. ^^ It was this baptism or purifica- 
tion by means of repentance that John preached ; and 
it was foVy in order to represent this '' baptism of re- 
pentance,^^ that John baptized with w^ater. But let it 
not be forgotten that John's baptism was ere, '' unto 



54 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

repentance/^ and '' repentance ^^ was src^ '' unto remis- 
sion of sins/^ and not, as Campbell and his followers 
have it, ^' baptism with w^ater for remission of sins/^ 
Baptism with water and remission of sins are not con- 
nected together by the preposition e/C; untOy into, ov for, 
and it does violence to the text so to construe them. 

The idea put forth by these teachers is, that John 
w^ent throughout Judea and Galilee preaching to the 
people to come and be baptized with water by him; 
while the Scriptures represent him as preaching re- 
pentance, which purifies or baptizes the soul from sin ; 
and having done this, he administered a symbolical 
cleansing wdth water, which, in harmony with the ideas 
in vogue, represented the repentance. 

Mr. Braden says in the quotation above given, that 
" Matthew assures us he required confession before 
baptism.'^ Where does Matthew assure us of such a 
relation as that between confession and baptism ? I 
suppose he thought he fouDtd it in ch. iii, vi : "And 
were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.^^ 
But the very structure of th^ language indicates that 
the public confession w^as made by the baptism. It 
w'as a baptism /or confession of sin, and genuine con- 
fession of sin is the public expression of repentance. 
No language could more explicitly set forth the relation 
between baptism by water and repentance than this 
text. It requires blindness, superinduced by a theory, 
to make confession in order to water baptism out of 
the taxt, and that baptism in order to the remission 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 55 

of sin out of any thing or all that is said about John's 
baptism in the New Testament. 

But the absurdity of this theory of positive insti- 
tutes^ as applied to the dispensation of the Baptist^ is 
further manifest in the fact that Jesus, while minis- 
tering here on earth, uniformly forgave sins without 
any postive acts of obedience, but directly upon an 
exercise of faith. For example, the sick of the palsy, 
Matt, ix, 2: *^ And Jesus seeing their faith, said unto 
the sick of the palsy. Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins 
be forgiven thee.^' To the sinning woman in the house 
of Simon, Luke vii, 44-50 : '^ Thy faith hath saved 
thee ; go in peace. ^' Here Jesus commanded no obe- 
dience to positive institutes, in order to remission. 
He did not command baptism or any thing else. It 
can not be said obedience was impossible to them, as 
it is said of the thief on the cross. The only attempted 
reply is, that the Master himself was present, and had 
a right to prescribe such conditions as he saw fit. To 
this it is sufficient to reply that Jesus never contra- 
vened any of the fundamental demands of his law. 
What he requires of one sinner he requires of all, as 
conditions to pardon of sin. He lays down the con- 
ditions in order to justification, in the parable of the 
Pharisee and the publican. Luke xviii, 10-14: The 
publican simply prayed, ^^God be merciful to me a 
sinner, . . . and he w^ent down to his house 
justified rather than the other. ^^ The Pharisee had 
obedience to positive institutes to present as the 



56 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

grounds of his justification. He could have even said, 
as was said of his brethren, Mark vii, 4 : " And when 
I come from the market, except I baptize I eat not." * 
But he was not justified. 

Jesus, in his conversation with Nicodemus, laid 
down explicitly the conditions in order to salvation, 
justification, or pardon of sin, John iii, 14-18: '^ And 
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 
so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal 
life. For God so loved the world that he gave his 
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . . 
He that believeth on him is not condemned ; but he 
that believeth not is condemned already, because he 
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten 
Son of God." This language is definite as to what 
Jesus required, in order to the remission of sin — the 
removal of condemnation. This conversation was had 
during the so-called dispensation of John the Baptist, 
and manifestly laid down the conditions to salvation 
at that time. 

This scheme of doctrine teaches that the kingdom 
of heaven, or ^^ reign of heaven ^' in the dialect of 



* In this text the verb jSaTrTl^o) and the noun Sa^rLcmb^ both 
occur, and are translated wash, washing. Had they been trans- 
lated baptize and baptism, the ordinary reader would have 
had some light that he does not now have on this subject of 
baptism. 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES, 57 

Campbellisra, was not set up until on the day of Pen- 
tecost ; and that to Peter was intrusted the keys of 
the kiugdom, and that he opened its doors in his ser- 
mon on that occasion. Mr. Campbell puts it in this 
Avay : ^ " Peter, now holding the keys of the kingdom 
of Jesus, and speaking under the commission for 
converting the world, and by the authority of the 
Lord Jesus — guided, inspired, and accompanied by the 
Spirit — may be expected to speak the truth, the whole 
truth plainly and intelligibly, to his brethren, the 
Jews.^' Again : t ^^Thus commenced the reign of 
heaven on the day of Pentecost, in the person of the 
Messiah, the Son of God, and the anointed monarch 
of the universe. ^^ 

Of course, harmonious with this* theory, the decla- 
rations concerning the Church of God which we find 
in the Gospels must be explained away, as well as 
those also about the kingdom of heaven, or kingdom 
of God, which do not quadrate with it. 

For example, the proclamation of the Baptist, and 
also of the Master himself, that ^' the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand,'^ is always interpreted ^' the king- 
dom of heaven has come nigh,'^ because the Greek 
d-jjiC^o) has also that meaning. But in two instances 
the verb <fddvco occurs — Matt, xii, 28, and Luke xi, 
20 : '^ The kingdom of God is come unto you,^^ and 
**The kingdom of God has come upon you.^^ It will 



•^"Christian System," p. 194. t/d p. 171. 



58 ERRORS OF GAMPBELLISM. 

hardly be maintained that in these instances the Savior 
meant to teach these carping, fault-finding Jews that 
in a few years the kingdom of God would come. 

But there are other passages which can not, by any 
torture or critical emendation, be made to teach that 
the kingdom of heaven had not yet begun. Matt, xxi, 
31: "Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and 
harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.^^ 
Matt, xxi, 43 : " Therefore I say unto you, the king- 
dom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a 
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.^^ Matt, xxiii, 
13 : " Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, 
for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men : 
for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them 
that are entering to go in.^^ So also Mark i, 15 ; iii, 
24 ; Luke xvi, 16, et al. It is true these phrases — 
" kingdom of heaven,^^ " kingdom of God ^^ — are used 
in the Gospels with somewhat of a diversity of signi- 
fication, — at one time referring to the divine economy 
of grace established among men in the calling of Israel 
to be the depositors of the divine plan of salvation 
and the conservators of revelation ; at another refer- 
ring to the era of the Messiah ; at another referring to 
his complete conquest of the world to himself; at an- 
other to the reign of Christ in the heart; and at another 
to his glorious perfect kingdom above. But these are 
all grounded in the same great thought — the sov- 
ereignty of Christ. It is therefore unreasonable and 
confusing to attempt to make these terms to describe 



THEORY OF POSITIVE INSTITUTES. 59 

any one epoch in the scheme of divine grace — as Pen- 
tecost. The kingdom of heaven in every essential 
sense was established^ or ^^ set np/^ among men long be- 
fore this. But this idea is a part of a scheme of doc- 
trine that has for its aim the complete isolation and 
separation of the divine economy into parts, to show 
that at one time God had plans and purposes that at 
another he completely changed; in other words, that 
the Christian dispensation presents a thorough emen- 
dation of the divine procedure and requirements from 
what they were under the Mosaic dispensation. 

Let it be not forgotten, that if this theory of the 
^^ setting up^^ of the kingdom on Pentecost falls to the 
ground, a principal stone in the foundation upon which 
Campbellism builds is gone, and the theory necessarily 
falls with it. Mr. Campbell says : * ^^ Having, from all 
these considerations, seen that until the death of the 
Messiah his kingdom could not commence, and having 
seen from the record itself that it did not commence, 
before his resurrection, we proceed to the develop- 
ment of things after his resurrection, to ascertain the 
day upon which the kingdom was set up, or the reign 
of heaven begun.^^ Now, all this is necessary to 
prepare the way for the doctrine of the commission, as 
propounded by him and his followers, and the idea 
also that Peter, having the keys of the kingdom, 
opened it in the thirty-eighth verse of the second 



* " Christian System," p. 167. 



60 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

chapter of Acts, and laid down the inflexible con- 
ditions to admission into it for the entire Christian 
dispensation. Hence, Campbell tells us : * ^^ The stat- 
utes and laws of the Christian kingdom are not to be 
sought in the Jewish Scriptures, or antecedent to the 
day of Pentecost/^ 

A more completely artificial system of faith could 
not well be evolved. The crucial point of the whole 
is baptism by immersion as a necessary condition to 
the pardon of sin. To it the Scriptures must all be 
made to conform, whatever violence of translation or 
interpretation may be required. 



* '' Christian System," p. 157. 



THE COMMISSION, 61 



CHAPTER V. 

THK COMMISSION. 

An immediate doctrinal correlate of Campbell's 
theory of the kingdom of heaven, is his doctrine of the 
commission given to the disciples. It is at once as- 
sumed that the whole system is to be found here in 
the narrow compass of a positive precept. Campbell 
says:* "The commission for converting the world 
teaches that immersion was necessary for discipleship ; 
for Jesus said, ^ Convert the nations, immersing them 
into the name/ etc., and ' teaching them to observe,^ 
etc. The construction of the sentence fairly indicates 
that no person can be a disciple according to the com- 
mission who has not been immersed ; for the active 
participle, in connection with the imperative, either 
declares the manner in which the imperative shall be 
obeyed, or explains the meaning of the command ; . . . 
for example, ^cleanse the house, sweeping it;' thus, 
^convert (or disciple) the nations, immersing them.''' 

Also, according to this system, the commission is 
to be found in modified form in the other three Gos- 
pels, Mark xvi, 15, 16: "And he said unto them. 
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to 



*^' Christian System," p. 198. 



62 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be 
damned/^ Luke xxiv, 46, 47 : ^^And said unto them, 
Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suf- 
fer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusa- 
lem/^ John XX, 22, 23 : ^^ And when he had said this, 
he breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained/^ 

A careful comparison of these passages in the light 
of subsequent Scripture teachings and facts, will show 
that they lend no support whatever to the ideas that 
these teachers assume to educe from them. 

There are a number of assumptions usually made 
here that need to be examined, — in the first place, th^ 
assumption, in the face of the larger part of the Chris- 
tian world, that immersion alone is baptism, and that 
the Savior said, " Go ye therefore, and teach all na- 
tions, immersing them.^* * It is sufficient to dismiss 



*It appears very certain to the author that if the assump- 
tion that God commanded an immersion is true, he would 
most certainly have commanded an emersion. Immersion 
never takes its subject out of the water. If he is immersed, 
he is there yet, unless he has been emersed, and with emersion 
the immersion has ended. This fundamental meaning of the 
word immerse is here brought out that the reader may see 
that baptism and immersion are not equivalents, as is assumed 



THE COMMISSION, 63 

this with the remark, inasmuch as we do not at pres- 
ent propose to discuss the mode of baptism, that if 
immersion is an essential condition to the remission 
of sin, is it not passing strange that the act was not 
carefully defined, so that multiplied millions of intel- 
ligent, honest people could not be so greatly mistaken 
as they have been through the Christian ages? 

A second assumption is that fjtadr^reuco — to disciple 
or make disciples, rendered ^^ teach ^^ in the Author- 
ized Version — is synonymous with convert, and remit 
sins. This idea is a very forcible illustration of the 
close affinity between the theories of Campbell and the 
doctrine of Rome. Both assume that they are com- 
manded to go and remit sins, and both claim to do so 
by baptism. This is the only difference : Rome con- 
tinues to exercise the prerogative after baptism ; Camp- 
bellism assumes to go no further than baptism. Con- 
version is a word of quite a latitude of meaning. An 
individual is converted when he has changed his faith 
or opinions. This a purely intellectual process. He 
may do this himself by investigation or inquiry after 
the truth; or the teaching of another may be the 



by Campbell and his followers. A person may be in a bap- 
tized state ; but he can not be in a state of immersion without 
being hopelessly drowned. Baptism and immersion are not syn- 
onymous. Baptism is the rite of cleansing or purification, and 
its ideas are wholly spiritual ; immersion is a physical act of 
submergence underneath a physical substance or fluid. Earlier 
advocates of this theory called it dipping, and dipping it is ; 
for the word dip takes out again. 



64 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

principal agency in it. In the second case, the teacher 
may be said to have converted the other. But to con- 
vert by the mere act of baptism, is an extension to the 
meaning of the word that certainly has no warrant 
whatever in Scripture. 

It will be observed that the teaching comes after 
the baptism in the only commission where baptism is 
mentioned. First, ^^ disciple them by baptism;^' then, 
'' teach ^^ them. But does " disciple ^' and '' convert ^^ 
mean the same thing? Alexander Campbell was the 
first to broach such an idea. To make a disciple 
means to make a learner, a pupil. To convert means 
to change in heart, life, character. The first is an 
outward act of profession ; the second is an inward 
spiritual change. So the great body of the Church 
for ages, even from apostolical times, has understood 
the commission in Matt, xxviii, 19, to authorize the 
baptism of infants. 

There can be no conversion, the followers of Camp- 
bell admit, without faith, repentance, confession. If 
so, how could the disciples ^^ convert by baptism?^' 
If, on the other hand, as Mr. Campbell says, conver- 
sion and immersion are the same thing,* then repent- 
ance, faith, and confession are no part of it. In this 
hopeless confusion are we left by this attempt to har- 
monize these ideas. 

In the Scripture use of the term, conversion refers 



*" Christian System,'* p. 195. 



THE COMMISSION. 65 

to all that change that takes place in a sinner to turn him 
from sin to the service of God ; that is, conviction of sin, 
repentance, faith, pardon, regeneration, adoption. The 
work is both divine and human, — conviction, pardon, 
regeneration, adoption are the divine side ; ^^ repent- 
ance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus 
Christ'^* are the human side. There is not one sin- 
gle passage of Scripture that, either directly or by fair 
inference, calls baptism conversion. Mr. Campbell 
quotes Acts xxvi, 17, 18: ^^ Unto whom now I send 
thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from dark- 
ness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, 
that they may receive forgiveness or sins, and inher- 
itance among the sanctified.^^ Luke xxii, 32 : ^^ When 
thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren f^ and 
James v, 19, 20: ^^ If any of you err from the truth, 
and one convert him, let him know that he who con- 
verteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall 
save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins. ^^ 
If we had been selecting passages of Scripture to show 
the utter fallacy of this doctrine, we could have se- 
lected none better for such purpose. In the first the 
apostle Paul most clearly sets forth that he was sent 
to the Gentiles to convert them by teaching ; and as to 
the divine side of the work, the forgiveness of sins 
and sanctification was predicated upon faith as the 
individual act. There is no water baptism in the 

* Acts XX, 21. 



66 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

passage, and the inference that places it in the verb 
iTicarpecfcOy is without any warrant whatever. There 
must be, indeed, a wonderful virtue in w^ater baptism, 
if it will '' turn men from darkness unto light. ^^ 

But perhaps some follow^er of A. Campbell may 
say that he meant that baptism is only an essential 
step in the process of turning. To this it is sufficient 
to reply that if converting and baptizing in the com- 
mission are identical in signification, then Campbell's 
interpretation must, without limitation, be put on these 
passages. 

With regard to the second passage which speaks 
of Peter's reclamation after his grievous fall, what 
evidence is there to show that he was baptized? If 
reclamation is conversion, and baptism is conversion,* 
then when was Peter converted or baptized? And 
why do not the followers of A. Campbell convert all 
backsliders in the same way? 

And, with reference to the quotation from James 
V, 19, 20, the first verse of the quotation clearly 
sets forth that the conversion here spoken of is the 
conversion of the brother who may have " erred from 
the way,'' a backslidden disciple; and if conversion 
and baptism are the same thing, here is a clear case 
where baptism must be repeated. 

A third assumption is, that Christian baptism is 
absolutely essential to making disciples, while no fact 



*See "Christian System," pp. 198, 208, 209. 



THE COMMISSION, 67 

is better attested than that there were disciples of 
Christ who had never received Christian baptism. In 
Acts xix^ 1^ we find disciples who were to all prac- 
tical purposes such, and accepted of God, who yet were 
not baptized by Christian baptism. Mark, the in- 
spired historian, called them " disciples.^^ 

Hence, from these insuperable objections, we 
think the inference is legitimate and necessary, that 
the theory finds no support in the commission as de- 
fined by Matthew. 

But the stronghold of the theory is believed by 
its advocates to be the commission as given by St. 
Mark xvi, 15, 16. This they triumphantly point to 
as a '' thus saith the Lord,^^ in support of their doc- 
trine. Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr. Hughey, 
says : ^ " You can all understand a plain ' Thus saith 
the Lord.^ The statement, ' He that believes and is 
baptized shall be saved from his sins,^ is as plain as 
the command, ' Thou shalt not steal.^ God has said, 
^ He that believes and is baptized shall be saved from 
his sins.^ Do you believe him? Did the Son of 
God mean what he said?^^ 

Now, if there is a passage in the Scriptures, in 
the Authorized Version, that seems to teach this doc- 
trine, it is this one. If it can not be made out from 
this, then it can not be made out at all. Let us look 
at its terms. It will not be denied that ^^ shall be 



' Hughey and Braden Debate," pp. 195-196. 



68 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

saved ^^ and "shall be damned ^^ are in antithesis to 
each other. If so^ the salvation spoken of here is 
final or eternal salvation. " He that believeth not '' 
shall not be damned until the end of his probation. 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ^^ 
at last. " He that believeth not shall be damned ^^ at 
last. So that this does not set forth the conditions to 
present salvation, the salvation of the sinner, but the 
conditions to their final salvation. We have called 
attention to this fact to show that there are not two 
conditions or personal acts required here, but a condi- 
tion, faith ; and a state of heart, baptism or purity. 

The propriety of this interpretation will be more 
manifest w^hen it is seen that if both faith and bap- 
tism are made personal conditions or acts of the in- 
dividual, then, to complete the antithesis, the text 
must read " he that believeth not and is not baptized 
shall be damned.^^ The doctrine of Campbellism is, 
he that is not baptized shall be damned — the very 
thing the text does not say. It affirms that damnation 
is the consequence of unbelief. The only escape from 
this difficulty is to say that every true believer will 
be baptized. Which is squarely untrue. Again it is 
manifest that if the proposition is true that " he that 
believeth not shall be damned," it is also true that 
"he that believeth shall not be damned," that is, 
shall be saved. The Savior says identically the same 
thing in John iii, 18: "He that believeth on him is 
not condemned; but he that believed not, is condemned 



THE COMMISSION. 69 

already/^ See also v^ 24 ; vi^ 40-47 ; and xx, 31. Here 
we have an antithesis that clearly sets forth that con- 
demnation is predicated on unbelief alone^ while non- 
condemnation is the result of faith. The passage 
therefore does not teach the doctrine of condemnation 
for not being baptized, and this is Campbellism. 

The whole difficulty in the interpretation of this 
passage arises from the attempt to read ritual or 
water baptism into it. Place Spirit baptism in the 
text^ and it coalesces into perfect harmony. " He 
that believeth and is purified shall be saved. ^^ ^^He 
that believeth not^^ will not be purified or baptized, 
and therefore shall be damned. 

* Dr. Murdock, translator of the Syriac New 
Testament into English, in an article on the ^Syriac 
Words for Baptism ^ in the BibliotheGa Sacra, October, 
1850, says: ^^The declaration in Mark xvi, 15, 16, 
which in the Greek reads, ^Go ye into all the world 
and preach my gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that 
believeth not shall be damned,^ would in the Syriac 
read, ' He that believeth and standeth fast shall be 
saved. ^ ^^ This serves to show that in very ancient 
times — as early as the second century of our era — - 
this passage was conceived not to refer to the mere 
rite of water baptism, but to something more spiritual 
and enduring- — something expressive of a state of 
character. 



' Christie Baptism," p. 399. 



70 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

But the reader of the Revised Version will notice 
that the section of Mark^ sixteenth chapter, that con- 
tains the passage in question, is separated by a space 
from the rest of the text. We are told that this was 
done because it was not believed to be Mark^s writ- 
ing, but an addendum hy some subsequent hand. (See 
Koberts^s ^^ Companion to the New Revision/^ pages 
61-63.) The reasons for this are: 1. It was not to 
be found in the two oldest manuscripts, the Codices 
Siiiaiticus and Vaticanus. 2. The Primitive fathers, 
Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Sev- 
erus of Antioch, Jerome, and others, have said that 
Mark did not write it, and the best copies extant in 
their day did not contain it. 3. Internal evidence is 
strongly in support of the claim that it is an addendum 
subsequently made. It contains at least seventeen 
new words that St. Mark nowhere else in his Gospel 
has employed. We think these objections are fatal to 
it as genuine Scripture. Certainly they present suffi- 
cient reasons why the damnation of the believing 
penitent should not be predicated upon his lack of 
baptism. 

The commission, according to St. Luke, has noth- 
ing whatever to say about baptism. And yet Mr. 
Campbell and his followers claim to find it in the 
words " that rej)entance and remission of sins should 
be preached m his name.^^ The preposition here 
translated m is iTrc, the primary meaning of which is 
upon. It Is not the preposition that connects bap- 



THE COMMISSION. 71 

tism and tlie name of Christ — that is, e/c invariably. 
The obvious meaning is, ^^that remission of sins 
should be preached upon (faith in his) name.^^ So 
Paul said to the Philippian jailer : ^^ Believe [iTzc] on 
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved/^ 
Similar illustrations of the use of this preposition are 
to be found in Acts ii, 38; iii, 16; xi, 17; xv, 8, 9; 
1 Peter i, 22. In all of which cases the preposition 
iTTCj upon, connected with the name of Christ, either 
has faith mentioned or implied; and a large number 
of similar instances might be quoted in addition to 
these. 

The commission as given by John xx, 22, 23, is 
usually presented by them to show that the apostles 
were charged with the responsibility of remitting sins, 
and that this same prerogative has been handed down 
from them to all preachers of the gospel in per- 
petuity. Of course, so far as it goes, the claims of the 
Papal Church could not be more absolute. These 
men hold the keys of the kingdom in their right as 
ministers of the word, and they open and shut the doors 
at their convenience. The writer has known them 
to postpone the remission of sins for two weeks, and 
it is a common occurrence to defer this remitting act 
for twenty-four hours, or from the time the penitent 
believer makes the proper confession until the next 
evening ; or until the baptistery can be gotten ready, 
or water sufficient can be found, be the time long or 
short. 



72 EEROBS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

But this is simply one of several examples where 
difficult passages of Scripture are seized by them/and 
given an interpretation in harmony with their views, 
and then cited as proof-texts. The most reasonable 
interpretation of the passage in question is this : the 
apostles of the Lord, under him as founders of the 
Church, were, through the inspiration given them, 
endowed with powers and prerogatives in the Church, 
that, however necessary at that time, were not per- 
petuated after them. 

This apostolical authority and power was mani- 
fested in several instances, as in the case of Hymen- 
eus and Alexander in 1 Tim. i, 20, and Ananias 
and Sapphira in Acts v, 1-11. These were preroga- 
tives that grew out of the apostolate, that have not 
been perpetuated, and most certainly not in the per- 
formance of mere ordinances. Nothing but the de- 
mands of a false system could ever have prompted to 
the construction put upon the apostolical commission 
by these teachers. 



ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE. 73 



CHAPTER VI. 

CAMPBEIvIvISM ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE. 

Campbellism, in order to present a system that 
will be consistent with itself^ is compelled to place 
faith before repentance, and also to deny heart-faith, 
making it to consist only in the assent of the mind to 
truths established. Require the system to put re- 
pentance in the right place in the sinner's approach to 
God, and its important proof-texts require at once an 
explanation different from that they give them, and in 
conflict with their theory of doctrine. This fact we 
will make plain when we come to consider Acts ii, 38. 

We will let them define the relation of faith and 
repentance in their own language. Mr. Campbell 
says : ^^ Repentance is an effect of faith,^^ having de- 
fined faith above as the ^^ simple belief of testimony, 
or of the truth, and never can be more or less than 
that.^^ * So that, according to him, faith is the merely 
intellectual act of the acceptance of truth, and repent- 
ance must necessarily follow after such a faith. Mr. 
Braden lays down the following order : f ^^1. Hearing 
the gospel. 2. Believing the gospel as faith. 3. Re- 



*'^ Christian System," p. 52. 

t '* Hughey and Braden," p. 186. 

7 



74 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

peutance. 4. Confession of Christ. 5. Obedience or 
baptism. 6. Pardon or remission. ^^ This order is es- 
sential to the system. Reverse it^ and the scheme of 
doctrine falls to the ground. Put faith after repent- 
ance, and Acts ii, 38, must be given a different inter- 
pretation from that they are accustomed to give it. 
Faith after repentance, however, is the uniform 
divine order. Nowhere within the range of the Di- 
vine Word is the order reversed. In Matt, xxi, 32, we 
have a specific statement as to the relation that faith 
and repentance sustain to each other : ^^ For John 
came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye be- 
lieved him not; but the publicans and the harlots be- 
lieved him : and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not 
afterward, that ye might believe him.^^ What can 
more explicitly set forth the precedence of repentance? 
It will not help the theory at all to say that the verb 
for ^^ repented ^^ is iieraixiloiiac, and not [leravoico', for 
the repentance here is clearly defined as a repentance 
that, with faith, would have brought them into " the 
kingdom of God,^^ verse 31. Again, it is not by any 
means conceded among scholars that [lErafiiXoiiac de- 
fines simple regret, and never otherwise. Dean Trench, 
in his " New Testament Synonyms,^^ clearly disproves 
this idea. But regret is a part of repentance, and be- 
longs to all genuine repentance ; and therefore, unless 
repentance is divided in two, and faith put between 
regret and godly sorrow for sin, the argument from 
the word amounts to nothing. 



ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE, 75 

Again, in Mark i, 15, the same relation is clearly 
exemplified: ^^Ancl saying, The time is fulfilled, and 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand: repent ye, aud be- 
lieve the gospel ;^^ also Acts xx, 21 : ^^ Testifying both 
to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance 
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.^^ 
These will suffice to show that in the gospel plan re- 
pentance comes before faith. 

The mistake of Campbell and his followers arises 
from their misconception of the nature of faith. With 
them, faith is merely an act of the intellect. It is such 
as all persons put forth who believe the Bible to be 
the word of God. For if it is conceived of as an act 
of the heart accepting Christ as the Savior from sin, 
it must be preceded by repentance, sorrow for sin, 
and an earnest turning from sin. Christ can not be 
accepted as a Savior from sin only by such as are tired 
of sin and want to get rid of it. A faith that comes 
before repentance must come before a godly sorrow 
for sin, or a desire to turn from sin. It is a rather 
singular faith in Christ that does not desire to be saved 
from sin. Yet this is the state of the case if faith 
precedes repentance. But it is often retorted. How 
can a man repent until he believes the Word ? '' He 
must hear it, he must believe it before he will repent.'^ 
This is not necessarily true; multiplied thousands 
truly repent who never hear the Word. All that is 
necessary to a genuine repentance, is the belief that I 
am a sinner, and a desire to get rid of my sins. This 



76 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

belief may exist with or without the Word. But a 
belief in Christ as my Savior can not exist without 
sorrow for sin^ and therefore the faith that in any 
sense has to do with personal salvation, is a faith 
after repentance, and founded on repentance. 

Attention has been called to the fact that if re- 
pentance and faith were placed in right relation to 
each other, a material change must be made in Camp- 
belFs interpretation of Acts ii, 38. Faith after re- 
pentance will place it in connection with ^^ the name 
of Jesus Christ/^ and the passage will read : '^ Re- 
pent and be baptized every one of you [believing] 
on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost/^ 
And this will at once dispose of the supposed relation 
as instrumental cause between baptism and remission 
of sin. ^^ [Believing] on the name of Jesus Christ is 
for the remission of sin.^^ The order then will stand : 
*^ Repent, and [believing] on the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, be baptized every one of 
you.^' Baptism is upon repentance and faith on the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Now, 
let it not be forgotten that if faith comes after re- 
pentance, it must occupy just the place in this pas- 
sage that is above given to it. It can occupy no other. 
This is sufficient reason, we think, for their disagree- 
ing with all Protestant Christendom as to the relation 
of faith and repentance. 

But it is said by the advocates of Campbellism 



ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE. 77 

that the persons who were directly addressed in Acts 
ii, 38^ had faith^ because they were pricked to the 
heart, and asked, ^^ What shall we do ?^^ Here is the 
mistake before spoken of, — intellectual belief or con- 
viction as to the truth is put for faith in Christ as a 
personal Savior. They were convinced of sin and felt 
their need of salvation; but this was by no means 
saving faith in Christ. Again, it may with equal pro- 
priety be said they had repented, for they had a pain- 
ful sense of sin and a desire to know how to get rid 
of it. In other words, they had sorrow for sin, and 
in their hearts were turning from it ; and this is gen- 
uine repentance. So that the word translated i^epent, 
in this connection simply means turn. '^ Turn and be 
baptized [believing] on the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins.'^ Their baptism was to be an 
expression of their faith on or upon Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sin. 

The followers of Campbell are accustomed to assert 
that there is but one kind of faith. In this they are 
simply following in the wake of their great leader, 
who declares that '^ faith is only the belief of testi- 
mony,'^ * meaning thereby to deny that there is any 
property or quality belonging to saving faith other 
than the mere intellectual assent to truth estab- 
lished. This in fact he asserts : f '^ Here I am led 
to expatiate upon a very popular and pernicious error 



' Christian System," p. 113. Md. 114. 



78 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

of modern times. That error is that the nature or 
power and saving efficacy of faith is not in the truth 
believed, but in the nature of our faith, or in the 
manner of believing the truth. Hence all that un- 
meaning jargon about the nature of faithy and all 
those disdainful sneers at what is called ^historic 
faith/ as if there could be any faith without history 
written or spoken. Who ever believed in Christ 
without hearing the history of him?^^ What con- 
fusion must have existed in this man's mind to cause 
him to write, to use his term, such a jargon of ab- 
surdities. He certainly would not have the reader to 
understand that there is no diiference in nature be- 
tween the faith of devils and that of pious Abraham. 
(James ii.) Or that Paul is not defining the nature 
of faith in Rom. x, 10: ^^With the heart man be- 
lieveth unto righteousness. '^ Again, ^Sveak^' faith, 
^'strong'' faith, ^Mittle'' faith, ''great'' faith, are 
terms defining the nature of the particular faith re- 
ferred to in the Scriptures. In Matt, ix, 29, Jesus 
said to the blind men: ''According to your faith be it 
done unto you." By this he meant, According to the 
nature of your faith be it done unto you ; for they had 
already faith enough to ask to be restored to sight. 
And furthermore, how unreasonable the idea that 
the saving efficacy of faith is only in the truth be- 
lieved, and not in the nature of the faith also! The 
truth believed is the divine side of the salvation, and- 
the manner of believing it is our individual act, and 



ON FAITH AND REPENTANCE, 79 

we may believe with the heart, or we may not; and 
right between these lies the possibility of our salva- 
tion. How does it meet any issue concerning the 
nature of the individuaPs personal act of faith to say, 
^^ The saving efficacy is in the truth believed V^ It is 
there before it is believed, and there if it never is be- 
lieved ; but it is only appropriated to the individual 
by the manner of his personal belief. The fact is, the 
saving efficacy is back of the truth also — is in God 
alone. His truth contains the promise of this efficacy, 
and heart faith appropriates it. It is characteristic 
of Mr. Campbell, and also of his followers, to go clear 
outside of the real issue, and beat down men of straw. 
In this paragraph on faith there is still another false 
issue. The advocates of ^^ heart faith ^^ do not deny 
^^ historic faith. ^^ There can be ^Hiistoric faith ^^ with- 
out heart faith, but there can not be heart faith w^ith- 
out some historic faith, and we do Mr. CampbelPs in- 
tellectual discernment the credit to believe that this 
sophism did not deceive himself. 

Again, these teachers recognize the fact that '^ faith 
purifies the heart,^^ being compelled to admit the 
truth as set forth by the apostle Peter in his account 
of the conversion of the household of Cornelius, given 
in Acts XV, 8, 9 : ^^And God, which knoweth the 
hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy 
Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference 
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ^^ 
They usually lay down their doctrinal formula after 



80 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

this style : '' Faith purifies the hearty repentance puri- 
fies the life^ and baptism changes the state or rela- 
tion.^^ But it follows that if faith purifies the heart, 
and faith precedes repentance, an individual may have 
a pure heart and yet be unrepentant ; not only so, but 
be an heir of heaven, for the Savior says : '[ Blessed 
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God/^ This 
objection is fatal to this scheme of doctrine, for it can 
not be modified so as to annul the force of it. Faith 
must come before repentance, and these together be- 
fore baptism, else the whole scheme falls to the 
ground. Admit heart faith after repentance, and 
place conviction the result of historic faith before re- 
pentance, and you have all the conditions, or rather 
the complete condition, necessary to salvation. You 
have salvation— for purity of heart is in itself the sal- 
vation of the sinner — and baptism will then be an act 
of grateful obedience upon the part of the child 
of God. 



SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 81 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 
ACTS II, 38. 

We now approach the stronghold of Campbellism, 
aware that all intruders are warned off this ground as 
trespassers. It belongs by special pre-emption to the 
theory. Who that has heard them preach has not 
heard of Acts ii, 38 ? It is believed by them to be 
just in the right place, and at just the right time, 
and to have just the right ring to make out a clear 
case for the doctrine. But despite the supposed in- 
vincibleness of the deductions made from the passage, 
we will examine it in the light of clear and explicit 
Scripture teaching, and upon rules of interpretation, 
the justness of which can not be questioned. 

In their employment of this passage in support 
of their theory of doctrine, the claim is uniformly 
made that it stands just at the door of the gospel dis- 
pensation. Peter, ^^ holding the keys of the kiug- 
dom,'^ is opening the door; is layiug down the law 
of universal induction into this kingdom, which is 
repentance, confession, baptism, remission of sins. 
But let us look at the passage : " Repent, and be bap- 
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ 



82 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost/^ 

The thoughtful student of the passage will at once 
see that the ideas above given spring rather out of a 
doctrinal prepossession than legitimately out of the text. 
Their interpretation is founded on several false as- 
sumptions : 1. That Peter here lays down the law 
of initiation into the kingdom of Christ. 2. That 
this command was intended for all Gentiles as well as 
the Jews then present. 3. That baptism by water is 
the baptism spoken of in the text. Some eminent 
scholars regard repentance as the baptism here spoken 
of^ as notably Dr. Dale, in his great work ^^ Christie 
and Patristic Baptism. ^^ ^ 4. That /or the remission of 
sins means in order to remission of sins. 5. That the 
preposition e/c? translated for, connects causatively 
baptism and ^^ the remission of sins.^^ 

We may say in the outstart, in reviewing this 
passage, that if it contains a doctrine so vital, so 



* Dr Dale, b}^ several examples of contemporary usage from 
reputable Greek writers, shows that repentance w^as believed 
to be a baptism within and of itself. That the term baptize 
is applied to a change w^rought in the heart is something that 
can not be disputed. In Col. ii, 11, 12, we have circumcision 
of the heart, *'the'circumcision of Christ " called baptism. In 
a quotation already given from Justin the Martyr, w^e have 
repentance designated as the trne baptism. So also Josephus 
defines John's baptism {Ant. ch. xviii, 6-2) as being twofold, 
outward by water, and inward by repentance. The line of 
thought suggested by Dr. Dale's position is a very interesting 
one, and worthy of careful stndy. 



SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 83 

important as the unvarying condition to the salvation 
of the sinner^ it has been most unfortunately con- 
structed ; so much so that its importance as a doc- 
trinal formula was not discovered until Alexander 
Campbell brought it to light. 

The assumption that the apostle Peter is here 
laying down the law of induction into the kingdom 
of Christ for all times and all races, is without any 
proof whatever, and squarely contradicted as to the 
facts, even though we should concede the interpreta- 
tion they place upon this passage ; for Peter in chapter 
iii, 19, says: " Repent ye therefore, and be converted, 
that your sins may be blotted out when the times of re- 
freshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.'^ 
Here is not a word said about baptism in order to tlie 
remission of sins. In order to get baptism into this 
passage, it is assumed that baptism and conversion 
are the same thing. ^ '^ But the second discourse 
recorded by St. Luke from the same Peter, pro- 
nounced in Solomon\s Portico, is equally pointed, clear, 
and in full support of this position. After he had 
explained the miracle which he had wrought in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, and stated the same gospel 
facts, he proclaims the same command : ^Reform and 
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,* or 
' Reform and turn to God, that so your sins may be 
blotted out; that seasons of refreshment from the 



•••"Christian System," p. 195. 



84 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

presence of the Lord may come^ and that he may 
send Jesus^ whom the heavens must receive until the 
accomplishment of all the things which God has fore- 
told/ etc. Peter^ in substituting other terms in this 
proclamation for those used on Pentecost, does not 
preach a new gospel, but the same gospel in terms 
equally strong. He uses the same Avord in the first part 
of the command which he used on Pentecost. Instead 
of ' be immersed j^ he has here ' be converted/ or ^ turn 
to God / instead of ^or the remission of sins/ here it 
is ^ that your sins may be blotted out/ etc.^^ 

It is hard to conceive anything more completely 
visionary than this attempt at harmonization. 1. ''Be 
converted^^ and ^^be immersed ^^ are assumed to be 
identical in meaning. The word here translated '' be 
converted/^ is iKcarpiifco, and is in the active voice, 
and should be translated ''turn againj^ *^ Repent 
therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be 
blotted out.^^ It requires therefore a marvelous 
stretch of the imagination to make this word the 
equivalent of the passive, ^^be baptized.^^ The ob- 
vious truth is, that the act of turning is the act of 
heart faith, which is required in order to the blotting 
out of transgressions. There is not the remotest ref- 
erence to water baptism in the whole passage. It is 
simply per force dragged into the text to save a 
theory. This may be written down as a case of re- 
mission of sins promised without water baptism, and 
obtained by five thousand by faith. See Acts iv, 4: 



SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY, 85 

" Howbeit many which heard the word believed^ and 
the number of the men was about five thousand/^ 

With equal explicitness is the preaching of the 
apostle Peter to the household of Cornelius in antag- 
onism to the assumption. Peter preaches/aiY/i as the 
condition to the remission of sins. Acts x^ 43 : ^' To 
him give all the prophets witness that through his 
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re- 
mission of sins.^^ And instantly upon this preaching 
^^ the Holy Ghost fell upon all that heard the word/^ 
sealing thus ^' the remission of sins^^ by faith without 
water baptism^ for the baptism came after this. It is 
plain, therefore, that if Peter laid down the uniform 
law of the kingdom, he forgot it in a very short time. 

The assumption that ^^for remission of sins ^^ 
means ^^ in order to remission of sins/^ is always made 
when this passage is cited by them. Baptism to rep- 
resent, or symbolize, the remission of sins is /or the re- 
mission of sins. Baptism as a sign and seal of re- 
mission of sins in the name of Christ is for the re- 
mission of sins. For these purposes it is not /or as a 
condition in order to remission of sins. But it is re- 
plied that whatever repentance is for, baptism is for, 
and in the same sense. There is plausibility in this, 
and hence we maintain that the interpretation is en- 
tirely wrong that connects baptism and repentance 
with remission of sins by the preposition et^, rendered 
for. The ^^ name of Jesus Christ ^^ and ^^the re- 
mission of sins ^^ are connected by for ; and this was 



86 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

the purpose of tbe apostle to bring vividly before the 
minds of these Jews that remission of sins was in the 
name of Christ alone. The recognition of this name 
for the remission of sins w^as the essential thing for 
them. And that recognition was secured by heart 
faith in him^ or upon him. 

This, to the waiter, very apparent principle of in- 
terpretation, leads to the fact that the text contains 
an ellipsis that should have been supplied in trans- 
lating. 'Eni T(p dvofiarc does not mean the same as 
e/c ^^ ovofxa in Matt, xxviii, 19. The first means 
'' upon the name/^ the second means ^' into the nameJ' 
Alexander Campbell says : * ^^ BaTrrc^co and irrl so 
perfectly disagree as never to be found construed in 
amity in any Greek author, sacred or profane.^' While 
we do not accept this as at all true, yet we quote it as 
serving to show that he could not reasonably accept 
the phrase in Acts ii, 38, as a substitute for '^ baptism 
into the name of Christ,^^ or the baptismal formula. 

The primary meaning, then, of im is on or upon. 
Then, upon the name of Christ is believing upon his 
name. There are quite a number of passages that 
exemplify this. Luke xxiv, 17 : ^^And that repent- 
ance and remission of sins should be preached [i;rr] in 
his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'' 
^^ Remission of sins on his name'' is remission upon 
faith in his name, or ^' believing on his name." So 



*" On Baptism," p. 154. 



SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY, 87 

Acts iii^ 16 : ^^And his name, througli [eni] faith in his 
name, hath made this man strong whom you see and 
know ; yea, the faith which is by \pc(i\ him hath given 
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you aU/^ 
Peter, in describing the conversion of the househokl 
of Cornelius, presents it as an exact parallel of the 
Pentecostal occasion. Acts xi, 17 : ^^ Forasmuch then 
as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who 
believed on [i;rr] the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, 
that I could withstand God V^ If anything could give 
more forcible illustration and warrant for reading enl 
Tw dvofjtarc in Acts ii, 38, ^^ believing on the name oi 
Jesus Christ,^^ it is incomprehensible as to what it 
could be. Here is an exact parallel of the phrase in 
Acts ii, 38, with ^^ believed ^^ just where we claim it 
should be ; and furthermore, the inspired apostle tells 
us, all the facts of the cases were similar. (See Acts 
XV, 8, 9.) For £7:1 in connection with the ^^ name of 
Christ,^^ meaning ^^ believing on his name,^^ see Acts 
ix, 42; xvi, 31; xxii, 19; Rom. iv, 5 and 24; ix, 33; 
X, 11 ; Phil, iii, 9 ; 1 Tim. i, 16-18 ; iv, 10 ; v, 5 ; and 
numerous other passages. 

Acts ii, 38, is the only passage in the Scriptures 
where baptism and the name of Christ are connected 
with the preposition im. This, then, prepares the way 
for the proper rendering of the passage : '^ Repent,^^ 
or rather, ^^turn, and be baptized, every one of you, 
[believing] on the name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the 



88 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

Holy Ghost/^ Now, Campbellism, in the use of this 
text, always reads baptism and '^for remission of sins ^^ 
together, as if /or immediately linked these two to- 
gether; whereas in the Greek text there are seven 
words intervening, and one of these words is a con- 
nective by which baptism is linked to " the name of 
Christ." It must therefore read, ^^be baptized upon 
and /or/^ The connective power of /or is fully met 
in joining together the ^^ name of Jesus Christ ^^ and 
" the remission of sins/^ Who can dispute the state- 
ment that '' the name of Jesus Christ is for the re- 
mission of sins ?" If this is so, the text does not 
teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. If 
baptism was for, or in order to, remission of sins, is it 
not remarkable that nothing more is said about a mat- 
ter so important as this? And is it not strange that 
God should violate this unchangeable order in the 
case of the household of Cornelius? 

There was an appropriateness in Peter^s enjoining 
upon these Jews at this time the outward expression 
of their acceptance of Christ, namely, baptism. The 
same reason did not exist in the case of the Gentiles, 
and so the visible badge of discipleship was not en- 
joined upon them in connection with their acceptance 
by faith of Christ as their Savior. It was sufficient 
to exhort them to believe on Christ, and baptism as a 
Christian duty w^ould be attended to by them in due 
time. So to-day in heathen countries our missionaries 
exhort to baptism as a visible pledge of the convert's 



SPECIAL TERRITORY OF THE THEORY. 89 

breaking caste with heathenism. The circumstances 
cause them to lay a stress upon it as a matter of public 
profession there that could not be placed upon it here. 

But if faith comes after repentance — and so the 
Scriptures uniformly teach — it comes just where we 
have put it in this passage ; and if it must be supplied 
at the juncture indicated, it forever separates baptism 
and the remission of sins as antecedent and consequent, 
and places the only proper Scriptural antecedent as a 
condition to the remission of sins in connection with 
the name of Christ. 

So much attention has been given to this passage, 
because by the advocates of the theory of baptismal 
remission it is regarded as a stronghold, and because 
we believe that a fair and reasonable interpretation of 
the passage, at once and forever places it upon the side 
of spiritual Christianity, and takes it out of the hands 
of those who make the mere mode of a ritual act the 
very gate to salvation. 

8 



90 ERROES OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 

These teachers, by a process peculiarly their own^ 
seek to draft into the service of their theory quite a 
number of passages of Scripture in the Acts of the 
Apostles and the Epistles. But it is at once manifest 
that their interpretations are mostly efforts to har- 
monize the texts in question with the dogma. For 
if the doctrine is true, it is fundamental and should 
often appear in the Scriptures. Faith as the condition 
to justification appears on almost every page of the 
Gospels or Epistles. If baptism is an equally impor- 
tant condition, it ought to appear as often. Hence it 
need not be a matter of great astonishment if these 
people find baptism as a condition to salvation where 
others do not. 

It is, however, no doubt, a matter of not a little 
surprise that an attempt should be made to prove this 
dogma by the case of Cornelius, given in Acts x, 
34-48. But Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Pro- 
fessor Rice, actually assumes to prove his doctrine by 
this instance ; so do also the present exponents of the 
doctrine. As Campbell presents the best attempt at 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 91 

an argument^ we quote him : ^ ^^ My seventh argu- 
ment is deduced from the conversion of Cornelius and 
his Gentile friends. His excellent moral character, 
and his great devotion to prayer and alms-deed, had 
not yet saved him. The message received from God 
directed him to send for the man who had the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, who could tell him words 
by which he and his family and friends ^ might be 
saved,'' I need not relate the whole story as it is 
represented in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts. 
Peter, in relating the matter afterward, as reported in 
the eleventh chapter, develops more fully the intention 
of the mission, and details some of the incidents more 
at length. Particularly in the fourteenth verse he gives 
an account of the necessity of his sermon — as ^ words 
whereby Cornelius and his family might be saved. ^ 
He also states that as he began to speak these words — 
as soon as he got to remission of sins through the 
name of the Lord Jesus — at that moment the Spirit, 
in its miraculQus attestations, fell upou all the Gen- 
tiles present, as it had done in the baptism of the 
Jews on Pentecost. . . . Soon, then, as Peter saw 
all this, he asked the believing Jews, who had accom- 
panied him from Joppa, whether they could on any 
account refuse them the grace of baptism. No de- 
murrer having been instituted, he commanded them 
to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Thus also 



**' Campbell and Rice," p. 440. 



92 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

were the Gentiles saved by faith, repentance, and 
baptism.'^ 

This extensive quotation is given that the reader 
may seethe adroit manner in which the facts are modi- 
fied to suit a theory. At each step from the out- 
start there is a slight manipulation of the narrative, 
so that in the outcome the theory may be fitted into it. 

In the first place, the word saved in Acts xi, 14, 
applied to Cornelius, is assumed to signify the par- 
don of sins — his justification and acceptance with God — 
while it is a fact that God showed Peter that Cornelius 
was accepted of him before this. Verse 15: "What 
God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.^^ And 
tiot 50nly so, but Peter recognized the divine ac- 
ceptance of Cornelius in this language. Verses 34, 35 : 
"Of a-' truth I perceive that God is no respecter of 
persons-; but in every nation he that feareth God and 
worketh righteousness is accepted of him.^^ So al- 
ready Cornelius was accepted of God. The word 
saved here undoubtedly means, saved from Gentile 
superstition and ignorance— saved to the conscious- 
ness of acceptance with God, under the broad priv- 
ileges of the gospel. But suppose that^ sav^d here 
does mean pardon of sin, what is there to prove that 
he was not saved until he was baptized with water? 
Did not the Holy Ghost fall on them before they 
Avere baptized with water? And was not this divine 
seal of their acceptance with God, made the grounds 
for their baptism with water? Again, did not the 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 93 

apostle declare that the forgiveness of sin was pred- 
icated on faith in Christ? Verse 43: ^^To him give 
all the prophets witness^ that through his name, icho- 
soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.^^ 
At this juncture the Holy Ghost fell upon them, 
^^ while Peter yet spake these words/^ Xote the 
adroitness of Mr. Campbells narration of this circum- 
stance. He represents Peter as telling his brethren 
of the circumcision at Jerusalem, that as he '' began 
to speak these words — as soon as he got to remission 
of sins through the name of the Lord Jesus — at that 
moment the Spirit in his miraculous attestations fell 
upon all the Gentiles present/^ Why leave out re- 
mission of sins through ^'believing in himf^ These 
were the last words Peter spoke before the descent of 
the Holy Ghost. Why say '^ miraculous attestations ^^ 
w^hen defining this baptism of the Holy Ghost ? Peter 
says, chapter xi, 17, that it was ^^the like gift as unto 
us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ f^ that is, 
unto those of his Jewish brethren who received the 
Holy Ghost at Pentecost, not in the first outpouring, 
but that which afterward came upon the three thou- 
sand — the gift of the Holy Ghost. Since followers of 
Campbell make a distinction hetween the baptism 
and the gift of the Holy Ghost, we desire that this 
fact shall be noted. But, for the argument's sake, it 
makes no difference whether it is considered wholly 
miraculous or not; the truth remains, that God set his 
seal to their acceptance before baptism by water. 



94 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

Had it been designed to furnish a positive refuta- 
tion of the theory of Campbell, we are unable to con- 
ceive how it could be more perfectly done than in this 
instance. How that can be regarded as a condition 
to the remission of sin that does not come until after 
God has set the seal of his approbation on the be- 
liever, will ever remain inexplicable to careful think- 
ers. No consequent can be its own cause, or anteced- 
ent. The use of this instance by Mr. Campbell as an 
argument for his theory looks very much like an at- 
tempt by sheer audacity to break somewhat of the 
force of the argument to be deduced from this against 
his scheme of doctrine. 

The narration of the baptism of Paul is uniformly 
presented by them as lending support to the dogma. 
Campbell states the argument in this form:* ^^ Paul 
was now a believing penitent, a proper subject for the 
grace of baptism; for baptism has its peculiar grace 
as well as prayer or fasting. Paul had inquired of the 
Lord what he should do. The Lord commissioned 
Ananias to inform him. He went to PauPs room, . . . 
and instantly commanded him to ^be baptized and 
wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the 
Lord.^t Now, the washing away of his sins was 
certainly to be accomplished through the water of 
baptism. . . . Neither his faith nor his repentance 
had washed away his sins. ... In any other case 



* " Campbell and Rice," p. 439. t Acts xxii, 16. 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 95 

the literary world would interpret this phrase as I 
have done/^ 

1. In order to get an intelligent understanding of 
this matter, let us inquire, first : What was the extent 
of Ananias's commission? Was he commanded to 
baptize Paul? If baptism is conversion, as Campbell 
says, then it was the most important part of Ana- 
nias's commission, and yet he does not mention it at 
all in connection with this commission. But in Acts 
ix, 17, he, going in unto Saul ^^and putting his hands 
on him, said. Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that 
appeared unto thee in the way, as thou camest, hath 
sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be 
filled with the Holy Ghost. ^^ Now note carefully the 
result of the fulfillment of this commission, verse 18. 
^^ And immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had 
been, scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and 
arose, and was baptized. ^^ If Ananias^s mission was 
fulfilled as he defined it, Paul ^^ received sight and 
was filled with the Holy Ghost. ^^ Having received 
this baptism — the true baptism — he was, like Corne- 
lius and his household, baptized with water. But he 
did not first receive sight at the laying on of Ananias's 
hands, to be then baptized with water, after which to be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost. That is not the order 
of the text, nor is it the order of the divine proced- 
ure ; for when physical sight was restored by the di- 
vine interposition, spiritual sight was also given. 
Again, there is no question that the first blessing that 



96 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

came to Saul after the imposition of Ananias's hands, 
^vas the restoration of sight. But it was by the lay- 
ing on of the apostle^s hands often, that the Holy 
Ghost was imparted. (See ch. viii, 17; xix, 6.) 
Hence the receiving of sight and of the Holy Ghost 
came before the w^ater baptism. 

But it is said Saul was commanded to ^^ wash away 
his sins by baptism.^^ (Acts, xxii, 16.) In this asser- 
tion there are three assumptions that are without 
proof: 1. That ^Svash away thy sins^^ means through 
baptism performed as a condition. If this be so, the 
language is exceedingly figurative. It will not be 
claimed that the water of baptism actually washes away 
sins. If it does not literally wash aw^ay sins, it must 
simply stand for that that washes away sins, the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost. With this agrees the lan- 
guage of the apostle himself, 1 Cor. vi, 11: ^^And 
such w^ere some of you : but ye are washed, but ye are 
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God;'^ and 1 Cor. 
xii, 13: ^^For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, w^hether 
we be bond or free ; and have all been made to drink 
into one Spirit.^^ 

2. Again, it is assumed that this is water baptism 
of which Ananias is speaking. The word baptize in 
the text is in the middle voice, and therefore has the 
reflexive signification of that voice. A literal trans- 
lation would be : ^^And why tarriest thou ? arise and 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 97 

baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord/^ Dr. Dale says,* with 
reference to the translation above : ^^ It w^ill be ob- 
served that the force of the middle voice is retained 
in this translation. A discriminating use of words in 
the Scriptures has always a reason for it, and our 
business is not to change the statement to make it ac- 
cord with some other statement, but to accept it and 
seek for the reason of it. This is the only passage 
where j^azzc^co is so used in the middle voice. There 
must be a reason for it. The whole transaction is 
unique. The baptism is entirely removed from or- 
dinary baptism. There is nothing in the teaching of 
Scripture, or in its free and frequent use of language, 
to prevent a call being made upon Saul to ^ baptize 
himself and wash away his sins by prayer.^ The 
translation of the passage from the Syriac, by Dr. 
Murdock, is as follows: ^4rise, be baptized, and be 
cleansed from thy sins while thou invokest his name.^ 
Here the baptism and the cleansing from sin are to be 
secured by prayer, and ^ while ^ the prayer is being 
made.^^ 

Etheridge's translation of the Syriac renders the 
passage in question as follows : ^^Arise, and baptize, 
and be washed from thy sins while thou callest his 
name.^' It is clear, therefore, that PauPs baptism 
was a baptism that he secured or invoked upon him- 



**' Christie Baptism," pp. 106-107 

9 



98 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

self by prayer, and not water baptism, performed by 
Ananias. 

But though we should regard it water baptism, the 
language of the text does not make the baptism to 
" wash away sins/^ Alexander Campbell has given 
us the key to the proper interpretation of the text, in 
his remarks on Matt, xxviii, 19:* ^^ To this I have 
not found an exception. For example, ' cleanse the 
house, sweeping it,^ ' cleanse the garment, washing it/ 
shows the manner in which the command is to be 
obeyed, or explains the meaning of it. Thus, ^ dis- 
ciple the nations, immersing them.^ Does Acts xxii, 
16, prove an exception to this rule of construction? 
^Wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord.^ ^For it shall come to pass, that whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. ^ ^^ f 
It is very plain, therefore, that the conditional cause 
of the washing away of sin is ^^ calling on the name 
of the Lord,^^ which is the expression of faith in him; 
and by this we are baptized into Christ, and by this 
baptism our sins are washed away — a baptism that 
comes by the prayer of faith. Hence PauPs baptism 
through prayer was a baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

But Paul gives an account of his commission in 
Acts xxvi, 16-18: ^^ But rise and stand upon thy 
feet, for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to 
make thee a minister and a witness, both of these 



* " Christian System," p. 198. tActs ii, 21 ; Rom. x, 13. 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 99 

things which thou hast seen^and of those things in the 
which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from 
the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I 
send thee, to open their eyes and to turn them from 
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an 
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith 
that is in me.^^ 

It will be observed, that although this commission 
is more extensive and explicit than that given to the 
other eleven apostles, yet there is not one word said 
about water baptism. If water baptism occupies the 
eminent place that Campbell claims it does in the plan 
of salvation, as the act of inducting the sinner into the 
kingdom of God, into the pardon of sin ; and if it is 
to be to him the evidence of this blessed relation; in 
other words, if, as Campbell claims, it is conversion 
itself, — is it not singular that no mention whatever is 
made of it here? Furthermore, according to this 
scheme of doctrine, it is the act of faith — the last act 
of faith upon which pardon or remission of sin is pred- 
icated. It therefore should be mentioned as explicitly 
3iS faith is mentioned in the text. It is clear, there- 
fore, that Paul received no commission to baptize 
people ^' into the remission of sins, ^^ 

There is still something more explicit from the 
apostle on this matter of water baptism than its omis- 
6ion from his commission as the great apostle of the 
Gentiles. In 1 Cor, i, 14-17, he especially disclaims 



100 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

being sent to baptize, and puts in striking antithesis 
preaching the gospel and baptizing, saying : ^^ I thank 
God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains, 
lest any should say I had baptized in my own 
name. . . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, 
but to preach the gospel/^ Does this language com- 
port at all with the idea that Paul had himself been 
saved by water baptism ; and also with the idea that 
water baptism is essential to salvation ? It must be 
remembered that Paul w^as the founder of this Church. 
He says, 1 Cor. ix, 1 : ^' Are ye not my work in the 
Lord ?^^ Chapter xv, 10 : ^^ But I labored more abun- 
dantly than they all;^' yet, according to this theory, 
he had converted only a very few. 

More specifically, as to his declaration that he was 
not sent " to baptize but to preach the gospel,^^ how 
can any one preach the gospel of salvation to sinners, 
and yet not give baptism a prominent place, if Camp- 
bellism is the true doctrine ? It does not fairly meet 
the issue to say that the person who preaches the 
gospel need not necessarily be charged with the ad- 
ministration of baptism. Paul was sent unto the 
Gentiles that they ^^ might receive forgiveness of sins.^^ 
To hundreds and thousands of them he was the first 
gospel preacher. If he was not sent to baptize, he 
was inadequately commissioned for his great mission- 
ary work. No, the plain and obvious truth is, that, 
in the estimation of the apostle, water baptism was 
something that could be administered by the disciples 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 101 

when the believers were organized into Churches. 
With Paul it was only an outward profession, a 
Churchly rite, that had its proper place in the visible 
Church, but was not an essential to the remission of sins. 

The fact that the apostles and their co-laborers 
were accustomed, according to the accounts given in 
the Acts of the Apostles, to baptize immediately those 
who professed faith in Christ, is often adduced as 
proof that baptism was regarded by them as essential 
to the remission of sins. Against this inference there 
lie several unanswerable objections. These were 
baptisms after the divine acceptance had been mani- 
fested, as in the case of the household of Cornelius, 
Lydia and her household, the Philippian jailer and all 
his house, and, in one other instance, a baptism where 
the individual was still " in the gall of bitterness and 
in the bond of iniquity,^^ as in the case of Simon the 
sorcerer (Acts, viii) ; and baptism where the persons 
had already been baptized, as in the case of the dis- 
ciples at Ephesus. (Acts xix.) 

The case of the household of Cornelius has been 
very thoroughly considered already. As to Lydia's 
case, we are specifically told (Acts xvi, 14) that the 
Lord '^ opened her heart, that she attended unto the 
things spoken by Paul.^^ In other w^ords, God's 
Spirit set the divine seal on her devotion and faith. 
As to the Philippian jailer, subsequents facts indicate 
that he did just what the apostle told him, in verse 
31, to do, ^^ believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.'^ 



102 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

The case of Simon the sorcerer is one of pecu- 
liar difficulty for Campbellism, for Simon had all the 
faith this system requires. *' He believed and was 
baptized/^ (Verse 13.) Yet he was still '' in the 
gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.^^ It 
is assumed by the advocates of this doctrine that he 
had backslidden in the intervening time; but there 
is not one particle of proof of it. Simon was not 
a penitent believer w^hen he was baptized, and there- 
fore, according to Campbellism, was not baptized at 
all; and therefore Peter should have commanded him 
to repent and be baptized. 

The case of the disciples found by Paul at Eph- 
esus, the account of which is given in Acts xix, 1-6, 
presents still more insuperable difficulties for the sys- 
tem : 1. They were disciples (verse 1). As such 
they were, according to Campbell, accepted of God 
and saved. 2. They had believed (verse 2). 3. 
They had been baptized (verse 3.) 4. They were 
baptized again with Christian baptism (verse 5). 
Now, if John^s baptism was unto remission of sins, as 
Campbell and his followers claim, and if Christian 
baptism is for the same purpose, here is a clear ex- 
ample of persons being baptized twice for the same 
purpose, and the second baptism administered without 
their having backslidden — they were ^^disciples.'^ 
Either John's baptism was not in order to remission 
of sins, or Christian baptism is not for such purpose, 



OTHER SUPPOSED PROOF-TEXTS. 103 

or neither is for such purpose. And the last is with- 
out question true. 

The way in which they seek to avoid this di- 
lemma is to assert that these persons were baptized 
by John's baptism some years after the inauguration 
of the Christian dispensation. This is squarely con- 
tradicted by the apostle's declaration in verse 4 : 
^^ John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
saying unto the people that they should believe on 
him that should come after, that is, on Christ Jesus.'^ 
If they had not been baptized by John, why this 
reference to the baptizing of John and his personal 
preaching? The shortest method on the supposi- 
tion above would have been to tell them that John's 
baptism w^as not valid after Pentecost. No ; this in- 
ference is a sheer gratuity. These were John's dis- 
ciples, a portion of that immense number that came 
to John's baptism, and had truly repented at his 
preaching, and like other Jews had found their way 
up here to Ephesus. 

While baptism usually was administered imme- 
diately by the apostles to their converts, the facts are 
that, in all instances recorded, there is something in 
the context indicating that the baptism was not per- 
formed as a condition to the remission of sins. The 
Philippian jailer is a typical example. If he obeyed 
the apostle's mandate, he was saved by faith, and 
baptized afterward. 



104 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER IX. 

BAPTISM INTO DEATH, INTO CHRIST, AND BAPTISMAI, 
WASHINGS. 

There are certain forms of expression in the 
epistolary writings of the New Testament Scriptures 
that the advocates of this scheme of doctrine make 
use of in a peculiar and somewhat novel sense ; as^ 
for example^ '^ in Christ ^^ is the baptized state ; 
baptism into water is baptism '^ into Christ f^ bap- 
tism into death is baptism by water, or rather into 
water, into the remission of sins; and, of course, 
^^ buried by baptism ^^ means immersion. 

Mr. Braden presents these their ideas to the best 
advantage in the briefest compass.* ^^ We are said to 
be separated from our sins, or the old man, in baptism, 
and so put on the new man. (Rom.vi; Col. ii.) . . . 
Again, Christ is the door to his Church or kingdom. 
How do we come into Christ, or enter into this par- 
doned state? By baptism. (Gal. ii, 27.) Again, we 
are said to be justified by the name of Christ. (I Cor. 
vi, 11.) We put on his name, and have his name 
called on us in baptism.'^ 

The fallacy in this statement consists in the fact 



***Hugliey and Braden Debate," p. 236. 



BAP TISM INTO DBA TH, 1 05 

that false assumptions are made with reference to 
two important points : First, that water baptism is 
here referred to primarily ; and, second, that baptism 
into Christ and into the name of Christ are one and 
the same thing. 

Let us give close attention to the Scripture lan- 
guage of Rom. vi, 3, 4 : " Know ye not that so 
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life.^^ In 
the first place, let it be noted that baptism into Christ 
is one thing, and baptism into the name of Christ 
quite another. The Scriptures never confound these 
two. The first introduces us into the blessings of 
salvation. The second introduces us into visible 
covenant relation with Christ. The first is an ex- 
perience ; the second is a mere outward profession. 
Baptism into Christ is baptism by the Holy Ghost ; 
baptism into the name of Christ is baptism with 
water. (Matt, xxviii, 19; Acts xix, 5.) This is fully 
illustrated by its ancient Old Testament counterpart, 
circumcision. Rom. ii, 28, 29 : ^^For he is not a Jew, 
which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision 
which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew, 
which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose 
praise is not of men, but of God.'^ Put beside this 



106 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

language of the apostle the parallel passage found in 
Col. ii, 11, 12: ^^ In whom also ye are circumcised 
with the circumcision made without hands, in putting 
off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum- 
cision of Christ : buried with him in baptism, wherein 
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the 
operation of God, who hath raised him from the 
dead/^ " Outward circumcision ^^ distinguished a Jew 
nationally, physically; ^^circumcision of the heart ^^ 
distinguished a true child of Abraham. So outward 
baptism distinguishes a Christian by profession; but 
spiritual baptism distinguishes him as a real child of 
God. 

Every reasonable student of the Scriptures must 
admit that the apostle is his own best interpreter, and 
that what he has said upon this subject must be inter- 
preted in consistency. He must not be made to con- 
tradict himself. In 1 Cor. xii, 13, he sets forth spe- 
cifically the baptism to which he attributes a saving 
power and efficacy : ^^ For by one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body, whether w^e be Jews or Gen- 
tiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all 
made to drink into one Spirit.^^ Let it be observed 
that this is a formulated doctrinal statement of a 
universal character. *^ Jews and Gentiles,^^ ^^ bond 
and free,^^ certainly comprise all the race of men with- 
out distinction. And again, note the fact that the 
baptism is specifically defined as ^^by one Spirit,^^ 
and that this baptism inducts into ^^one body,'^ which 



BAPTISM INTO DEATH. 107 

is Christ. Now place beside this Rom. vi^ 3 : ^^ Know 
ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?^^ Now, 
how can these two propositions be true^ and baptism 
in the one instance be by water, and in the other be 
by the Holy Ghost ? 

The very striking character of the metaphorical 
language here used ought to prevent the careful stu- 
dent of this Scripture from considering the baptism 
here mentioned water baptism. First, it is '' into 
Christ ;^^ second, it is into his death; and third, into 
death. Is it in consonance Avith reason to attribute to 
a mere outward rite such an all-embracing spiritual 
influence ? 

But further light is thrown upon it by the parallel 
passage in Col. ii, 11, 12. Baptism is here desig- 
nated as ^^circumcision made without hands,^^ ^^the 
circumcision of Christ.^^ It is evident that baptism 
and circumcision as physical facts have no similarity. 
Their similarity must be in signification. But the 
apostle tells us, Rom ii, 28, 29, that the circumcision 
of Christ is a spiritual circumcision. A ^^circumcision 
made without hands ^^ must be spiritual, in the very 
nature of the case. Then again, we are also told that 
the burial and resurrection is '^ through faith of the 
operation of God f^ that is, faith in us, and, because 
of this, wrought by the Divine Spirit. ^^ For by one 
Spirit are we all baptized into one body.^^ We fail to 
conceive how the inspiring Spirit could have more 



108 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

completely hedged about these passages to prevent 
men from exalting a mere rite into a saving instru- 
mentality. 

It is sought to break the force of this chain of ar- 
gument by giving an exceedingly novel interpretation 
or rendering to 1 Cor. xii^ 13. We are gravely told 
that h kvi Tzveofiarc — '' by one Spirit ^^ — should be ren- 
dered '^ by the authority of one Spirit. ^^ * We give 
this individual credit for seeing the difficulty in the 
way of the theory, else it is impossible to conceive 
why any one should resort to such methods of exe- 
getical torture and such special pleading to save his 
case. When he undertakes to give such a rendering 
of the passage, he drags bodily the word authority 
into the text. In every passage in the Scriptures 
where baptism by the Spirit or by the Holy Ghost is 
spoken of, the phraseology is Jv 7:i>eo[iaTc, What non- 
sense to attempt to translate h by the words '' by the 
authority of,^^ as, for example. Acts i, 5 : " Ye shall be 
baptized by [the authority of] the Holy Ghost not 
many days hence. ^^ Again, Christian baptism is not 
administered ^^by the authority of the Holy Ghost,^^ 
but by the command of Christ. No, this is a mere 
makeshift to get rid of the force of an unanswerable 
argument. Paul clearly defines what baptism into 
Christ is in 1 Cor. xii, 13. 

Closely related to the above argument in method 



* Browder's " Pulpit," p. 77. 



BAPTISM INTO DEATH. 109 

and ideas, is an argument predicated on the words, 
^' one baptism/^ in Eph. iv, 5. It is maintained that 
the unity of the baptism consists in the one purpose 
for which it was instituted, namely, remission of sins. 
As already has been shown, there is but ^'one bap- 
tism,^^ but that baptism is spiritual baptism. '' By 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.^^ It 
may be asked, What, then, do you do with water bap- 
tism ? It is but the symbol of baptism. Jesus said 
of the bread of the eucharistic feast, " Take, eat, this 
is my body,^' and of the cup, ^^ This is my blood,^^ 
while he only meant. This symbolizes or represents 
my body, my blood. So water, properly adminis- 
tered represents baptism, the ^^ one baptism '^ of puri- 
fication from sin; baptism by ^^ one Spirit ^^ into ^^ one 
body,^' which is Christ. Eom. vi, 3, 4; Col. ii, 11, 12 ; 
1 Cor. xii, 13; Eph. iv, 3-6, all refer to one and the 
same baptism, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

Eph. V, 25, 26, is another passage that is uniformly 
presented by them as teaching baptismal remission. 
^^ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved 
the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
the word. ^^ In order to make this to teach the doc- 
trine, it is necessary to assume that the phrase "wash- 
ing of water ^' refers to baptism, and that this " washing 
of water" is a figurative expression for the remission 
of sins. 

Now, in the first place, regardless of the ordinary 



110 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

interpretation given this by commentators, we claim 
there is no sufficient ground for believing that water 
baptism is at all referred to in the passage. Cleansing 
by water, when baptism is out of the question, is a 
characteristic Scriptural figure. Psalm li, 7 : " Purge 
me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and 1 
shall be whiter than snow.^^ Ezek. xxxvi, 25 : '' Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols 
will I cleanse you.'^ John xiii, 10: "He that is 
washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean 
every whit.^^ Now, in all these instances cleansing by 
water is referred to, and yet no one pretends to give 
the passages a physical import. The washing of water 
stands for and represents spiritual cleansing ; but it is 
certainly straining the figure out of all reason to make 
it teach that the Church is actually washed from sin 
by the physical washing of water. 

But is it not claiming rather much for water bap- 
tism to have it accomplish all this cleansing is said to 
accomplish in verse 27 : "That he might present it to 
himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, 
or any such thing ?'^ Truly that would be a won- 
derful achievement secured by dipping a person once 
under the water. How are backsliders cleansed in 
this Church? for, according to Campbellism, they be- 
long to the kingdom. Certainly their former cleans- 
ing will not suffice for subsequent uncleanness; yet 
they, according to the theory, belong to this spotless 



BAP TISM INTO BE A TH. Ill 

Church. But Campbellism teaches that it is the sinner 
that is cleansed by baptism. The promise here made 
is with reference to the Church. 

In 1 Cor. vi, 11, we have clearly defined the agency 
by which the Church is purified or cleansed : " And 
such were some of you ; but ye are washed, but ye are 
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the 
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.^^ Here the 
^^ washing and sanctifying^^ spoken of in Eph. v, 26, 
are said to be accomplished by the Spirit. If by the 
Spirit, then not by water. But we have from the 
Master himself a complete and convincing definition 
of this term water, John vii, 38, 39 : " He that be- 
lieveth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his 
belly ^^ (or from wdthin him) '^ shall flow rivers of 
living water. But this he spoke of the Spirit, which 
they that believe on him should receive.^^ 

Again, cleansing is spoken of in Heb. x, 20 : '' Hav- 
ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and 
our bodies washed with pure water.'^ It needs but 
a glance to see that cleansing from the defilement of 
sin is attributed to sprinkling, and if physical sprink- 
ling is referred to, it will at one dispose of immersion 
baptism. On the other hand, if washing refers to 
baptism, it only cleanses the body, not the soul, not 
the heart — the sprinkling cleanses that. It is very 
obvious, therefore, that moral or spiritual cleansing 
is not secured by the performance of a mere rite. It 
will no doubt be said by these teachers, ^^ We do not 



112 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

mean that the water washes away sins/^ If so, then 
the language that attributes spiritual cleansing to water 
is figurative. If figurative, w^hich is the most reason- 
able figure — that it stands for baptism as a condition 
to the pardon of sin, or that it represents the cleans- 
ing influence of divine grace in the Holy Spirit ? Un- 
questionably the latter, for the Lord himself has 
defined the figure, again and again, in accordance 
therewith. 

An attempt is often made to draft into the service 
of this doctrine Titus iii, 5 : '' Not by works of right- 
eousness which w^e have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost.^^ The marvel is 
that they should attempt to adduce the text in support 
of their theory, for it is scarcely possible to find a 
more positive contradiction of their fundamental 
tenet — -justification by works. The text first shows 
that man is not saved by his own works. Now, bap- 
tism is either a work of righteousness, or it is not. 
If it is, it does not save us, for this is especially ex- 
cluded by the text. If it is not, in w^hat category 
shall we place it? It is always one of the ^^ works ^^ 
when they come to interpret James ii, 24. To this 
inconsistency does this theory of positive institutes 
drive them. 

In the second place, the salvation which is denied 
to our acts, is attributed to God^s grace or " mercy.^' 
This ^^ mercy ^^ is made manifest to us, and applied by 



BAPTISM INTO DEA TH. 113 

him, " by the washing of regeneration and the renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost. '^ The '' washing of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost ^^ is God^s work, 
not man^S; in any sense; neither the penitent's indi- 
vidual act, nor that of another person. Mark the 
words : This salvation is of the " mercy '^ of the 
Father, " through '^ the mediation of the Son, '' by'' 
the efficient agency of the Holy Ghost. The relative 
oJ)^ which, can not agree with di^axaivcodeco^, renerinng ; 
it may agree with Aourpoo, washing, or with IIi^e'JiiaTo^ 
dylorj, Holy Ghost, in the neuter gender. ^' Which '^ 
Holy Ghost in his washing and renewing power ^' he 
shed on us abundantly," is the thought indicated by 
the grammatical structure of the text. 

In like manner. Gal. iii, 27, is interpreted to har- 
monize with the dogma, ^^ For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." The 
similarity in thought and expression in this passage 
to those already quoted — as notably Rom. vi, 3, 4; Col. 
ii, 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii, 13 — if properly considered, will 
lead to its just interpretation. Baptism iiito Christ is 
baptism by the Holy Ghost, as has already been shown. 
^^ For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 
If done by the Spirit, it can not be done by water. 
What right any one has to read the text, ^' For as 
many of us as have been baptized [by water] into Christ, 
have put on Christ," is past comprehension to any 
one who takes into consideration the real import of 
the term baptism. 



114 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

But the verse immediately preceding the text 
sets forth the condition fulfilled by us, by which we 
become children of God : ^^ For ye are all the chil- 
dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus/^ If faith 
makes us children of God, then baptism by water 
does not make us such. In other words, if we are 
^^ children of God by faith,^^ baptism, which comes 
subsequently, does not have any part in the matter. 
But baptism here spoken of is the divine act, not 
ours. The context here is exactly similar to the lan- 
guage of 1 Cor. xii, 13 : ^^ For by one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free.^^ Gal. iii, 
27, 28 : '^ For as many of you as have been baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither 
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there 
is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus.^^ Is it possible that one of these cases is a 
manifestation of the effect of w^ater baptism, while the 
other is the effect of spiritual baptism ? Or is iden- 
tically the same thing accomplished by the water 
that is accomplished by the Spirit? The very reason- 
able rule, that an author must be interpreted in con- 
sistency with himself, divests this dogma of all sup- 
port from the teachings of the great apostle to the 
Gentiles. The apostle did not attribute the same re- 
sults to physical means that he did to spiritual; the 
same effect to a mere rite that belonged to the agency 
and power of the Holy Ghost. That he attributed 



BAPTISM INTO DEATH. 115 

induction into Christ to the baptism of the Spirit, 
can not for one moment be questioned. 

Eliminate from the Avhole attempt at argument 
the false assumptions on which it is predicated, and 
you have absolutely nothing left. The assumptions 
are: 1. AVhenever baptism is spoken of, unless it is 
specifically defined as by the Spirit, water baptism is 
meant. 2. Baptism into Christ is baptism by ^vater, 
notwithstanding the apostle affirms the contrary. 
3. Washing, as applied to baptism, means the wash- 
ing away of sin, which, however, is to be considered 
figurative enough to get rid of physical washing, and 
make it only become a metaphorical expression for 
the remission of sins by baptism ; that is, ^^ the wash- 
ing of regeneration^^ means the washing oi justifica- 
Hon or pardon. 



IIG ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER X. 

SALVATION BY BAPTISM, BY WORKS, BY " OBEDIENCE 
OF FAITH." 

Peter^ to whom, accordiog to this scheme of doc- 
trine, the keys of the kingdom were given, and who, 
on the day of Pentecost, opened its doors and laid 
down its constitution for all subsequent ages, is 
claimed to have set forth the saving efficacy of bap- 
tism by water in his first epistle to the general 
Church, ch. iii, 21 : '^ The like figure whereunto bap- 
tism doth also now save us (not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
science toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ.^^ On this passage Campbell says : * ^^ But 
Peter strongly maintains his Pentecostal address. He 
says, speaking of Noah's salvation in water, and by 
water, that we are saved in water, and by water, as 
Noah, in the ark, was saved through the Deluge, to 
which salvation, neither to the ark nor to the water 
alone, baptism corresponds as an antitype to a type, in 
saving those who enter the water, as Noah entered 
the Deluge, relying on God's promises." These ideas 
are with marked uniformity voiced by all the disciples 



* '' Campbell and Rice/' p. 558. 



SALVATION BY BAPTISM. 117 

of Campbell. They all, in the same confused way, set 
forth at one time the water of the Deluge, and at an- 
other the ark on the water, as the type of the salvation 
the sinner secures in or through the water of baptism. 
They also all agree in interpreting the word irrsfyco- 
TYjtxa (^^ answer ^^) as signifying the requirement or 
condition* of a good conscience, meaning in order to 
a good conscience. And they variously interpret ^^the 
putting away of the filth of the flesh ^^ as the washing 
away of physical filth, and then again the removal of 
ceremonial uncleanness.f There is a want of agree- 
ment even in the same writer, as for example Dungan. 

The passage in question is one quite difficult of 
interpretation, and it is not to be marveled at that 
there should be disagreement in interpretation; but 
it is not a little marvelous that there should be such 
confident dogmatizing founded upon this passage as 
that manifested by Mr. Campbell and his followers. 
On the other hand, it has been as positively cited as 
proving that baptism does not save us in any but a 
symbolical sense. It does not " put away the filth of 
the flesh,^^ but is simply the answer that a good con- 
science gives to the fact of a salvation already secured 
through faith in Christ. 

But it seems possible to the writer to give an in- 
terpretation which will make the apparent conflict 



* Braden, in " Hughey and Braden's Debate," p. 259. 
tD. E. Dungan, ^'On the Rock," pp. 195 and 333. 



118 ERRORS OF CA3IPBELLISM. 

between the principal and parenthetic clauses to coalesce 
into harmony. The whole matter turns on the sio^- 
uification attached to oJ xai. If we construe it as re- 
ferring to the word udazo^ (water,) and adopt the 
conjectural reading of some critics, substituting o for 
cJj then there will be some ground for the generally- 
received interpretation that the passage refers to bap- 
tism by water. But if we construe oJ xac in connec- 
tion with the word IJi^eufjtarc (Spirit), which is found 
in verse 18, the whole difficulty is at once removed : 
^^For Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the 
unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to 
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit [to xat]^ 
by ichich also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison ; which sometimes were disobedient, when once 
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, 
eight souls were saved [^dc 5^aroc] through the water, 
[oT xac']. By which [Spirit] also baptism, the antitype, 
now saves us (not of the flesh, the putting away of 
filth, but the answer to God of a good conscience) 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'^ With one 
exception, the rendering above follow^s the Greek 
construction; baptism is placed before antitype. 

If we construe the relative as referring to the 
word water in the preceding verse, and substitute the 
reading o for aJ y w^e have this absurdity, that the apostle 
represents the water of the flood as the medium of 
salvation, while in fact it was the medium of destruc- 



SAL VA TION B Y FAITH. 1 1 9 

tlon^ and Noah and his family were saved through it 
by the ark. Baptism is not the antitype of the Flood, 
but of the ark ; and if this be so, and it can not well 
be questioned, the relative does not therefore refer to 
the ivater. If it does not, it must refer to the Holy 
Spirit. The apostle declares that Jesus was ^^ quick- 
ened [or raised from the dead] by the Spirit,^^ verse 
18. And in verse 21 our attention is again called to 
his resurrection, as to our being saved through it by 
baptism. ^' The antitype baptism doth also now save 
us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.^^ In other 
words, as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
Spirit, we, by the same Spirit in baptism, are saved 
through the resurrection of Christ. 

How water baptism can save us by the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ, is past all comprehension. The 
advocates of exclusive immersion think that baptism 
was designed to represent a burial and resurrection; 
but to say that baptism saves us by a representation of 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, only covers part of 
their idea as to what baptism represents, and does not 
make a very lucid exposition of the passage. And 
yet this is the only conceivable exposition that can be 
given from their stand-point. 

In order to make clear our view of the teaching 
of this difficult passage — not difficult because it offers 
any support to Campbellism, but because of the ap- 
parent conflict between the parenthetic clause and the 
principal sentence — we will give a free paraphrase of 



120 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

it : ^^ By wliicli Spirit also, baptism, the antitype of 
the ark, now saves us (not of the flesh, the putting 
away of ceremonial taint, but the answer of a good 
conscience toward God) through the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ/^ It will be seen that the baptism spoken 
of is spiritual baptism, which saves, but not in putting 
away ceremonial taint, as Jewish purifications and 
baptisms were supposed to do, but the response of a 
good conscience to God — that is, the witness of a good 
conscience to God — through the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. 

Attention has several times been called to the 
fact that the fundamental tenet of Campbellism is a 
system of justification by Avorks. In support of this 
doctrine, an extensive use is made of the language 
of St. James, chapter ii, 21-14 : '' Was not Abraham 
our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac, 
his son, upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought 
with his works, and by works was faith made per- 
fect? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, 
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God. 
Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only/^ It is at once assumed that James is 
speaking of the justification of the sinner — justification 
in the sense of the pardon of sin, and then in order to 
make the plural ^^works,^^ in addition to faith, re- 
pentance, confession, and baptism are each styled a 
work. Of course, all this proceeds upon the unscrip- 



SALVATION BY BAPTISM. 121 

tiiral theory that repentance comes after faith, and 
that an oral confession of ^^I believe that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God/' is required as a part of the con- 
dition. 

The justification of which St. James is speaking, is 
the justification or approval of the child of God, long 
subsequent to his justification as a penitent sinner, and 
his adoption into the family of God. Let it not be 
forgotten that the question is, What must a sinner do 
to be saved ? not what the child of God must do to re- 
tain the divine favor. The language of St. James 
taken in its entirety shows that he is speaking of faith 
and works in a Christian. Verses 14-17: ^^ What 
doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath 
faith and have not works? Can faith save him? If 
a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 
and one of you say unto them. Depart in peace, be ye 
warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not 
those things which are needful to the body, what doth 
it profit? Even so, faith if it hath not works is dead, 
being alone.'^ The words ^^ brethren,^' a ^^ brother or 
sister,'^ and ^^one of you,'' clearly indicate that the 
apostle is speaking of the faith and good works of 
Christians, and not of penitent sinners. Duties are con- 
stantly required of Christians that are not required of 
penitent sinners as conditions to pardon. The works 
indicated here are works of charity, and not confession, 
repentance, baptism ; and logical consistency requires 
those who claim that the apostle teaches that good 

11 



122 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

works are necessary to pardon of sin, to show just 
what and how many are the works required. 

But the verses ordinarily cited — verses 21-24 — sim- 
ply set forth Abraham^s justification as a servant of 
the Most High, about twenty -two years after the time 
that the Scriptures said, '' Abraham believed God, and 
it was counted unto him for righteousness/^ When 
was Abraham justified by works ? When he offered up 
Isaac. (Yerse 21.) When was his faith counted unto 
him for righteousness ? When he believed God^s prom- 
ise made to him in Haran. All that can be made out of 
the passage, to give any color of support to the dogma, 
is contained in the expression, ^^ a man ^^ — ^^ Ye see 
then how that by works a man is justified, and not by 
faith only.^^ The expression is construed to mean 
the sinner, notwithstanding the example under con- 
templation is righteous Abraham, after long years of 
faithfulness. When '' Abraham believed God, and it 
was imputed unto him for righteousness,^^ what was 
the work he then performed ? According to CampbelPs 
terminology, what was the act of faith ? 

If CampbelFs interpretation of this passage is cor- 
rect, then there is a positive contradiction here of what 
Paul teaches in Rom. iv, 2, 3: ^^ For if Abraham 
were justified by works, he had whereof to glory; but 
not before God. For what saith the Scripture ? Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was counted unto him for 
righteousness.^^ See also the rest of the chapter, and 
chapter iii, 19-31 ; Gal. ii, 16, and iii, 6-11. These 



SAL VA TION BY BAPTISM, 123 

passages, with an inviucible clearness, evince that 
Abraham was justified by faith without works, and that 
the sinner is so justified ; but it is plain that Paul is 
talking of another justification from James. Paul is 
treating of the pardon of the sinner, James of the sub- 
sequent approval of the righteous. 

This is the only reasonable method of reconciling 
James and Paul. It is customary with these teachers 
to ridicule the idea that a reconciliation is necessary ; 
but when compelled to attempt one in order to vindi- 
cate their scheme of doctrine from the charge that the 
Scriptures are brought by them into conflict (for Paul 
says Abraham was justified by faith without works, 
and James says he was justified by faith and works; 
and here is conflict if both mean justification in the same 
sense), they say that Paul is talking about justification 
under the law of Moses, and James of justification 
under the Christian dispensation.^ Mr. Braden, w^hen 
pressed by Dr. Hughey on this point, says : " Let us 
look at PauPs argument. He had proved that neither 
Jew or Gentile could be saved by their works, for one 
had not lived up to the light of nature, and the other 
had not kept the Jewish law. How were they to be 
saved? By faith in Christ, without the deeds of obedi- 
ence to the law of nature or the Jew^ish law. ^ But,^ 
says the Jew, ^ how can he justify a man w^ithout 
obedience to the Mosaic law V ^ Why,^ says Paul, 



* Braden in debate with Hughe3\ p. 252. 



124 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

^ he justified Abraham without obedience to this law 
before the law was given, for the law was not given. 
In like manner he has done away with the law now, and 
he justifies men after the law, without the deeds of the 
law^ as he did before the law/ ^^ 

It is the broadest possible stretch of charity to call 
this an explanation or a reconciliation. It is an as- 
sumption w^ithout any proof whatever, that the apostle 
is treating of the impossibility of the Jews and Gen- 
tiles being justified, the one under the law of nature, 
and the other under the Jewish law, because neither 
had kept the law. Those who Avere justified, of either 
Jews or heathen, were either justified by faith without 
works, or by faith and works. If Jews were justified 
without obedience to the Jewish law, as Mr. Braden 
says, then the theory of Campbellism, that the Jews 
were justified by obedience to positive institutes, falls 
to the ground. 

Equally groundless is the assumption that Paul is 
showing (Romans iii and iv) the impossibility of 
Abraham's justification by the law, because it had not 
yet been given. There is not one word said in the 
whole of the apostle's argument about the law of 
Moses, or any law given by Moses. The law of cir- 
cumcision is the only law mentioned, and this is men- 
tioned in order to exclude it from any part in Abra- 
ham's justification. ^' Deeds of the law " and ^^ works " 
mean the same thing, and comprehend all acts of 
obedience whether by Jew or Gentile, and are ex- 



SAL VA TION B Y BAPTISM. 125 

eluded from having to do with '' the remission of 
sins that are past.'^ (Verse 25.) And when the 
apostle sums up the argument in chapter iii, 28-30, 
he makes it as clear as a sunbeam that he rs treating 
of justification under the gospel. ^^ Therefore, we con- 
clude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds 
of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he 
not also of the Gentiles ? Yes, of the Gentiles also. 
Seeing that it is one God which shall justify the cir- 
cumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision- through 
faith.^^ Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith with- 
out works, now and for all time. The justification 
spoken of is a present tense and a future justifica- 
tion, and is emphatically without works. When Mr. 
Braden says, '' Paul nowhere teaches that either saint 
or sinner can be justified by faith alone without works 
or obedience to the law of Christ," he asserts that 
which squarely contradicts the facts ; for Paul asserts 
that truth in the passages under consideration, and 
does it in the very words of this denial, in Gal. ii, 16, 
Revised Version: ^^ Yet knowing that a man is not 
justified by the works of the law, save [marginal read- 
ing,^ but only ^] through faith in Jesus Christ." Notice, 
^^a man" — not a Jew, but a man, any man — is not 
justified ^^ by works of the law," present tense, thereby 
indicating its universal application. Therefore Paul 
is treating of the justification of the penitent sinner, 
under the Christian dispensation, and he declares it 
is not by works; and if James is speaking of the same 



12G ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

thing, there is a square contradiction between them, 
and no jugglery with words will get rid of it. That 
must be a false scheme of doctrine that will put the 
inspired writers into contradiction. 

Again, the inconsistency of Campbell and his dis- 
ciples in claiming the " works ^^ spoken of by St. 
James as grounds of justification in the sense of pardon, 
is seen in this, that they mean in reality but one work. 
" The obedience of faith, ^^ " obeying the gospel,^^ and 
'' obeying that form of doctrine,^^ are expressions with 
them that mean but one thing. Campbell says:^ 
'' That it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith, 
which changes our state. ^^ Note '' an acV^ singular. 
After quoting Rom, i, 5; x, 8; xvi, 26; 1 Thess. i, 8; 
1 Peter iv, 17; Acts, vi, 7 — passages in which the ex- 
pressions '^ obedience of faith ^^ and " obeying the gos- 
pel '^ occur — he says : f '' From these sayings it is un- 
questionably plain that either the Gospel itself, taken 
as a whole, is a command, or that in it there is a 
command, through the obedience of Avhich salvation 
is enjoyed. ^^ Further on he says: "This act is some- 
times called immersion. ^^ It is plain, therefore, that 
they mean but one work as the "obedience of faith. ^^ 
If this be so, then the quotation of St. James proves 
that we are justified by acts of faith , and not an act 
of faith ^ as Campbell teaches. 

But do these phrases — " obedience of faith,^^ " obey- 



*" Christian System," p. 193. tic?, p. 192. 



SAL VA TION B Y BAPTISM. 1 27 

ing the gospel," and " obeying that form of doctrine" — 
mean baptism ? Let us take a few passages as samples. 
Rom. i, 5: ^^By whom we have received grace and 
apostleship for obedience to the faith among all na- 
tions for his name." Substituting baptism for ^^ obe- 
dience to the faith/^ will make manifest the absurdity, 
^^By whom we have received grace and apostleship 
for baptism among all nations." 1 Peter iv, 17: 
^^ What shall the end be of them that obey not the 
gospel [are not baptized]?" Rom. vi, 17: ^^But ye 
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine 
[baptism] which was delivered unto you." Well may 
the reader exclaim, What nonsense ! but it is the non- 
sense of the theory. '^ The obedience of faith " is all 
manner of obedience springing from faith; and it is 
Christian fidelity that it defines, and not the condi- 
tions the sinner performs in order to his salvation. 
'' Form of doctrine," ruTiOg^ ^yp^y example, or pattern; 
therefore pattern of Christian teaching in general. It 
requires a fertile iniagination to convert didayj^^j doc- 
trine, into immersion, or tutto^ dcdayji^ into immer- 
sion, and yet this is what the theory does every time 
this passage is cited as having reference to baptism. 
Water baptism may be a runo^, type of Holy Ghost 
baptism ; but it reaches the very superlative of absurd- 
ity to call water baptism a type of doctrine. 



128 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER XL 

CAMPBELL^S SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION. 

In order to refute the evangelical doctrine of jus- 
tification by faith alone, that is, by faith without works, 
Campbell and his followers are wont to call attention 
to the fact that justification is ascribed in the Scrip- 
tures to seven different causes ; namely, ^ faith (Rom. 
V, 1), grace (Rom. iii, 24), by his blood (Rom. v, 9), 
works (James ii, 21), in or by the name of the Lord 
Jesus (1 Cor. vi, 11), by Christ (Gal. ii, 16), 6j^ hioivU 
edge (Isa. liii, 11). Five of these so-called causes of 
justification are simply one cause — the meritorious 
cause of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this 
leaves hut faith and works as possible causes of justi- 
fication. All this confusion is removed when we con- 
sider that the question of controversy is only about 
the conditional cause of the justification of the sinner, 
and nothing else. It is not what Christ has done, 
what the Father has done, or what the Holy Ghost 
has done or must do, but w^hat must the sinner do as 
a condition to pardon or justification. And where 
Mr. Campbell says, '^ He that selects faith out of seven 
must either act arbitrarily or show his reason ; but the 



'• Christian System," p. 247, 



SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION. 129 

reason does not appear in the text. . . . Why, 
then, assume that faith alone is the reason of our jus- 
tification?'^ he either misapprehends the whole ques- 
tion, or is trying to confuse the matter in the miuds 
of his readers. There are but two of these seven causes 
that with any show of reason whatever can be called 
a condition, and one of these two ^^ w^orks '^ is espe- 
cially excluded by the apostle Paul in Rom. chapters 
iii and iv, and Gal. ii, 16, and iii, 6-11. If any one 
should assert that faith alone is the cause meritorious, 
efficacious, and conditional of the sinner's justification, 
Mr. Campbell w^ould have some reason for this objec- 
tion ; but all that is claimed is, that faith alone is the 
conditional cause, or the condition upon which justifi- 
cation is granted to the sinner. 

The writer once had a discussion of three days 
with a disciple of Alexander Campbell, on the subject 
of justification, and although the proposition was, 
^^ Faith in Christ is the only condition necessary to 
the justification of the penitent sinner,'^ yet each time 
his respondent spoke he insisted that " Faith alone,'' 
in the terms of the proposition, meant faith without 
repentance, without grace, without the blood of Christ, 
etc., through the entire catalogue, according to Camp- 
bell. The only conceivable reason for this persistent 
misrepresentation of the issue is, that baptism may be 
brought in under '^ works '^ as a cause of the sinner's 
justification. 

All that Mr. Campbell has to say about ^^ moving," 



130 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

" efficient/^ '^ procuring/^ "disposing ^^ "formal/^ "im- 
mediate/^ aud " concurring ^^ causes is so much in the 
direction of confusing a plain issue, What is the con- 
dition, or what are the conditions, if he so prefers it, 
performed upon the part of the penitent sinner to se- 
cure justification, pardon of sin, or salvation? Camp- 
bell and his disciples say, confession and immersion. 
Other evangelical Christians say, faith alone — mark 
now the plain proposition — to the penitent sinner, 
faith in Christ, and nothing else, is the conditional 
cause of his justification. 

As the interpretation of the Scriptural term, justi- 
fication is bent to suit the demands of this scheme of 
doctrine, so repentance is given a signification differ- 
ent from that usually given to it by evangelical ex- 
positors. Mr. Campbell defines repentance as ^"sor- 
row for sin,^^ and further says: "Genuine repentance 
does not always issue in reformation. Judas was sor- 
rowful even unto death, but could not reform. Many 
have been so genuinely sorry for their sins as to 
become suicides. Speak we of a ^ godly sorrow?^ 
No, this is not to be expected from unconverted and 
ungodly persons. Christians, Paul teaches, when they 
err, may repent with a godly sorrow ; but this is not 
to be expected from the unregenerate or from those 
who have not reformed.^' 

These ideas have the merit of originality, if nothing 



' Christian System," p. 255, 



SE VEN CA USES OF JUSTIFICA TION. 131 

else. '' Godly sorroAV ^^ is the sorrow of a baptized 
person^ for that is what he means by a Christian. It 
would be difficult to distinguish any more godly qual- 
ities about the sincere sorrow of a baptized person, 
than that of one who had never been baptized. It is 
to be inferred, if ^^ godly sorrow ^^ in 2 Cor. vii, 10, is 
the sorrow of a baptized person, then " the sorrow of 
the world ^^ must be the sorrow of an unbaptized per- 
son; but it is sadly to be observed that such a sorrow, 
according to the apostle, '' worketh death,^^ never sal- 
vation. 

But Mr. Campbell claims that [lezduoca^ uniformly 
rendered repentance, means reformation ; * and he 
furthermore claims that reformation f^^ represents the 
whole process of what is figuratively called regenera- 
tionJ^ It then foUow^s that if '^ godly sorrow ^^ w^ork- 
eth reformation, it works confession and baptism, for 
these are parts of the process of reformation or re- 
generation, according to this teacher. He also says 
that the multitudes who on the day of Pentecost 
asked, ^^ What shall we do ?^^ ^^ had already repented, 
they were sorry for the past f^ " had changed their 
minds/^ and were commanded to reform. But Mr. 
Campbell said, ^^^ Godly sorrow^ ^ is the sorrow of 
Christians alone ;^^ but ^^ godly sorrow ^^ worketh 
fxezduocai^, repentance — according to Campbell, refor- 
mation — that is to say, that the sorrow of the Chris- 



* '' Christian System," p. 258. t Id. p. 259. 



132 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISAL 

tian works regeneration, and regeneration is tne whole 
process of reformation, repentance, confession, bap- 
tism. Such is the inevitable confusion that results 
from this man's ideas concerning repentance. 

Reformation and regeneration are not the same 
thing, neither is /jLezdpom the unvarying equivalent of 
reformation. It is properly translated repentance, 
and includes in its meaning ordinarily genuine sor- 
row, honest confession of sin, and an earnest effort of 
heart to turn from sin. 

But this doctrine of repentance and reformation is 
a part of a fabric. Leave it out, and its consistency 
as a theory is not maintained. Regeneration must be 
made the equivalent of reformation in order to make it 
reach its consummation in water baptism. In other 
words, regeneration must be made the individuaPs 
work alone, in order that it may be nothing more 
than a reformation wrought out by sorrow for sin, 
confession of Christ, and baptism. For if regenera- 
tion is anything more than this, if it is a work wrought 
out by the Spirit of God, then water baptism, as the 
so-called ^^bath of regeneration/' does not consum- 
mate the new birth, and its efficacy as a condition to 
salvation is at once set aside. That is to say, if re- 
generation is spiritual, the w^itness to it must be the 
Holy Spirit, and it would be inconvenient to deny 
the claims of the unimmersed people to the witness 
of the Spirit. 

Mr. Campbell seems to have had quite a fancy for 



SE VEN CA USES OF JUS TIFICA TION. 133 

the phrase, "bath of regeneration/^* as a translation 
of the Greek loorpoT) T.ahyyzvzaia;^ (" washing of re- 
generation ^'), Titus iii, 5 ; and he says this is the 
equivalent of being born of water. But this, like all 
of his other modifications of the Received Version, is a 
modification in the interest of a theory. He says : " The 
bath of regeneration means the water used for regen- 
erating a person/^ f The word Aoorpou occurs but 
twice in the New Testament, and in both of these 
cases is rendered washing by the translators of the 
Authorized Version and by the Revisers. It is true 
the Revisers have put the word laver in the margin 
as a possible rendering of the word. But the Septua- 
gint uses Xoozy^p for the containing vessel, and not 
XouTpov. This, however, is a matter of but little mo- 
ment. CampbelPs idea is that Xoozpoij here stands for 
the element in which regeneration is wrought; but 
this is a sheer assumption. '^ Washing/^ in this text, 
defines a process as much as '' renewing J^ We have a 
similar form of phraseology in the fifty-first Psalm : 
" Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, 
and I shall be whiter than snow.^^ Is it reasonable 
that, in the case in question, one of these expres- 
sions should define the element in which, and the 
other the process by w^hich ? The plain fact is, that 
regeneration is accomplished by "washing?^ and "re- 
newing^' of the Holy Ghost shed on us. Again, 



* "Christian System," p. 263. Id. p. 268. 



134 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

'' the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ^' are put in antithesis to ^^ works of right- 
eousness which we have done/' Now, baptism is cer- 
tainly a work of righteousness ''which toe have done/^ 
if so, it is in antithesis to this so-called '' bath of re- 
generation/' and can not be the same thing. 

In the same way Mr. Campbell attempts to han- 
dle the phrase ^^ pure water/' in Heb. x, 22. He tells 
us that ^^pure water" is a metonymy for ^^ cleansing 
or washing of water." '' ' Having your bodies washed 
with pure water/ or water that purifies or cleanses." ^ 
Kadafjd:;^ pure, occurs twenty-eight times in the New 
Testament, and not in one single instance does it de- 
fine any thing else than the quality of the noun with 
w^hich it agrees. Kadapw odarc means '' pure water," 
and not water which cleanses. It is the most gratui- 
tous assumption imaginable that attempts to attach a 
morally cleansing efficacy to this dean water. The 
moral, or rather spiritual, cleansing is wrought by the 
'' sprinkling," because this is of the heart, and it is a 
sprinkling from an evil conscience. Sprinkling stands 
for cleansing; as, for example, ^^the blood of sprink- 
ling." "Purge [sprinkle] me with hyssop." 

But all this is in consonance with Mr. Campbell's 
theory of the new birth or regeneration. Water is 
the mother, according to him, out of which the Chris- 
tian is born. He says, f in commenting on John iii, 5 : 



*" Christian System," p. 265. '\ Id. p. 201. 



SEVEN CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION. 135 

^^ So in every place where water and the Spirit^ or 
water and the Word^ are spoken of^ the ivater stands 
first. Every child is born of its father when it is 
born of its mother. Hence the Savior put the mother 
first^ and the apostles follow him/^ It has been face- 
tiously remarked '^ that it is not marvelous that these 
people have so much to say about water^ for it is natu- 
ral that children should think well of their mother/^ 
But is there one word in the Scriptures to support 
this odd notion ? Did Jesus^ in the conversation with 
Nicodemus, give the remotest hint of any such a 
thing? He only mentioned this so-called mother 
once; and subsequently^ when he had occasion to com- 
pare the new birth and the natural birth, he made no 
mention of the water. '^ That which is born of the 
flesh, is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.^^ 
But Mr. Campbell says:^ ^^ The Spirit of God is the 
begetter; the gospel is the seed." It follows, by 
the analogy that he is carrying out, that the Spirit's 
office is fulfilled in regeneration before the new birth 
takes place. Hence the Savior placed these two 
agencies of the new birth in wrong relation to each 
other — a relation contrary to fact. It should have been 
^* born of the Spirit and of the water.^^ But his theory 
will not permit him to put being born of the Spirit 
where the Master puts it, after being born of the 
water; for if he so does, a man is not born again when 



*" Christian System," p. 201. 



136 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

he is baptized, and tliis is fundamental to Campellism. 
So he must reverse the Savior's order in fact, and 
make a distinction between begetting by the Spirit, as 
the term is used in the Scriptures, and being born of 
the Spirit. But the word in the Greek is the same 
term that is translated born, yevvdco. But in one sin- 
gle instance is another word used. In James i, 18, 
aTToxuico is used, but this properly means to bring 
forth, and is so translated in the fifteenth verse of the 
same chapter. 

Being born of the Spirit means the whole divine 
process of regeneration from commencement to con- 
clusion, and especially is it that last divine work by 
which the individual comes forth a new creature — be- 
ing '' born from above.'' Campbell must make being 
born of the \vater, being born of the Spirit also; for 
if he does not, it follows that being born of the 
water, or baptism, according to him, is no part of the 
process of the new birth ; for the Savior says, '^ that 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit" or spiritual ; and 
if he is born of the Spirit before he is born of the 
w^ater, he is spiritual before he is born again. And if 
he is not born of the Spirit until after he is born of 
the water, he is not yet a child of God w^hen born of 
the w^ater, because not born of the Spirit. Therefore, 
born of the water and born of the Spirit must be one 
and the same thing. 

To this extent of absurdity does this peculiar doc- 
trinal theory lead in the interpretation of the Scrip- 



SE VEN CA USES OF JUSTIFCA TION, 137 

tures. Truth is consistent. It is prima facie proof 
of falsity that a doctrinal scheme makes the Scriptures 
self-contradictory, as does the one in question. Water 
in regeneration can be nothing but a symbol. The 
moment it is made an essential part of the process, it 
is brought into conflict with the work of the Spirit; 
for to be born of the Spirit is to be born again, to be 
" born from above/^ to be spiritual — a child of God. 
If this comes before baptism then the work is already 
accomplished ; the subject of the change is already 
'' spiritual.^^ If after baptism, then baptism does 
not complete the work, and it may never be com- 
pleted, as the individual may not exercise the faith re- 
quired. Hence a careful study of CampbelFs utter- 
ances will lead to the conclusion that he regarded 
being born of the water as being born of the Spirit ; 
which is the only view that furnishes any escape from 
a hopeless dilemma, and this at the expense of a 
logical denial of the Spirit^s work in the new birth. 
It is true that he and his followers ascribe the 
work of instructing and convincing the mind to the 
Spirit ; but this, according to them, is done by the 
w^ord of divine truth — the word being the pro- 
duction of the Spirit. It therefore follows that every 
one who sincerely inquires, '' What must I do to be 
saved ?^' is born of the Spirit, because he has been 
convinced by the word ; but according to these teach- 
ers, there is still repentance, confession, and baptism, 
before such a spiritual personage, before he is born 

12 



138 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

again. In other words, he is boru of the Spirit, and 
is spiritual; and, according to Paul, Rom. viii^ 6: 
^^ To be spiritually minded is life and peace ;^^ that is, 
he possesses this blessedness before repentance, con- 
fession, and the new birth. A marvelous fabrication 
of doctrinal inconsistencies. 

And this is not all. Campbellism teaches that 
Christian baptism was first instituted or ordained by 
the commission, and the kingdom of heaven first set 
up on Pentecost. Yet they have. Jesus here telling 
Nicodemus some two years previously that he must 
be born into a kingdom two years oflF, by a process 
not to be instituted for a similar length of time. One 
thing is certain, that the new birth and the kingdom 
of God were present facts at the time of this conver- 
sation. If the Master had meant that this new birth 
into this kingdom was to take place two years hence, 
he w^ould have told Nicodemus so. It is evident that 
Jesus was not talking about Christian baptism in 
speaking of being born of the water ; and if baptism 
is at all referred to, it must have been John's baptism, 
for one thing is certain, baptism in the name of Christ 
was an institution of the Gospel dispensation not yet 
introduced. The reasonable view therefore is, that 
water in the text no more refers to baptism than the 
water spoken of by the Savior in his conversation with 
the woman of Samaria at Jacob's well. The idea that 
it refers to water baptism is a legacy of mediaeval 
rituals. 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 139 



CHAPTER XII. 

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 

Although Alexander Campbell has declared that 
^^the meaning of this institution [the New Testa- 
ment] has been buried under the rubbish of human 
traditions for hundreds of years/^ and that ^^ it was 
lost in the Dark Ages^ and has Jiever been till recently 
disinterred/^ and ^^ since the grand apostasy was at- 
tempted, till -the present generation, the gospel of 
Jesus Christ has not been laid open to mankind in its 
original plainness, simplicity, and majesty/^ yet he 
has appealed, as extensively as any polemical writer in 
the Christian centuries, to great names, both in the 
primitive Christian Church and in more modern times, 
in support of his theory of doctrine. 

From the extent of these quotations, the reader 
whose knowledge of Church history is limited, would 
be led to infer that his doctrine has been taught and 
accepted by the Church at large in all ages, and is not 
that new thing that he claims to have dug up. in 
this century from ^^the rubbish of human traditions.'^ 
These two positions can not both be true; the doctrine 
can not be, as he claims in ^^ Christian System,^' pp, 
225-234, a part of the creeds of the great Protestant 
bodies, and the teaching of the great expositors of 



140 ERRORS OF CAMFBELLISM. 

Scriptural truth among them, and at the same time a 
new discovery made by himself and his father within 
this nineteenth century. 

There can be but little question that Campbell is 
correct as to the latter of these two alternatives. 
The doctrine is new and essentially so, and he there- 
fore has misunderstood the authorities he quotes. 
They do not hold to baptism as a necessary condi- 
tion to justification. They certainly were not per- 
sistently contradicting themselves. This misconcep- 
tion is evidenced in the fact that he makes no 
distinction between baptism as a symbol, sign, seal, 
and means to salvation, and baptism as a condition 
antecedent and absolutely necessary to the pardon of 
sin. This confounding of these ideas, und also of 
baptismal regeneration, with his theory, will be seen 
further along in our examination of the teachings of 
these authorities. 

As to the primitive Christian fathers — Justin Mar- 
tyr, Origen, Ignatius, Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian of 
Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, and others — it is read- 
ily conceded, without entering into a detailed examina- 
tion of their writings, that they attached an exaggerated 
importance to baptism, as well as to all other Church 
rites and ordinances. It is very possible to quote 
them in behalf of baptismal regeneration, and also 
for the superior efficacy of ^^ the baptism of blood, '^ 
^^ of fire,'^ and the like. Let it be kept in remem- 
brance that this is a mere appeal to men's opinions, 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 141 

and these are simply to be valued according to their 
ability to form correct opinions. It is true, he claims 
that he cites them as witnesses to fact. What fact? 
The fact as to v/hat they believed and taught, and 
nothing more. Not in one single quotation that he 
makes in the "Christian System/^ pp. 218-225, is 
there an historical statement, save and except in those 
instances where the fact of infant baptism is set forth 
as regeneration. These passages were quoted by Dr. 
Wall to prove the existence of infant baptism as a 
fact. The reason assigned by these fathers is a mere 
miatter of opinion ; but on the contrary, it is not the 
fact for which Campbell cites these authorities, for 
he rejects that as of any binding authority, but the 
opinion, namely, that the baptism was to effect regen- 
eration. How he can claim, as he does,* that it is as 
witnesses in a question of fact, and not of opinion, 
we summon these ancients, and then proceed to quote 
Origen as saying, "Infants are baptized for the for- 
giveness of their sins.^^ Now, what is fact and what 
opinion here? Is not the statement that "infants 
are baptized '^ a statement of fact, and the statement 
that this is for forgiveness of sins a mere matter of 
opinion? In the remainder of this quotation, Origen 
proceeds to explain this matter of opinion, or how in- 
fants, Avho are irresponsible, can be "baptized for the 
forgiveness of sins,^' all of which is only Origen^s 



''' Christian Sj^stem," p. 223. 



142 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

opinion, and made necessary because of the fallacious 
idea that this baptism was for the forgiveness of sin. 
The fact is, Alexander Campbell and his followers 
will abide by the teachings of the Primitive Fathers 
only in those things that serve their purpose, or seem to 
do so. If we base our belief on primitive Christian doc- 
trinal teaching, how much of it are w^e to take? Just 
where will we draw the line? Campbell seems to in- 
dicate at what they testify to as to fact. This we will 
readily accept, and insist at the same time that the 
reasons assigned by them for baptism, whether adult 
or infant, must be considered only as matters of 
opinion. The extent to w^hich such opinions existed, 
is a matter of fact : and if he can show as a fact that 
his doctrine was generally received, he is entitled to 
the benefit of that fact alone. We speak of his doc- 
trine of baptismal justification, or the pardon of sin^ 
predicated on the condition of baptism. If they gen- 
erally taught this doctrine, he is entitled to the benefit 
of this fact, nothing more, and it is still left an open 
question. Were they, in this respect, in harmony wath 
Scriptural teaching or not? But did they really hold 
to Campbell's doctrine ? No. The most that can be 
made out of their tea<ihings is that baptism w-ashes 
away the sins of an individual, whether adult or in- 
fant, because of an efficacy given to the w^ater by its 
consecration. In other words, it was the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration, a doctrine Campbell disclaims. 
They also believed in infant regeneration by baptism, 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 143 

and administered it to infants for the same purpose 
that they did to adults. It therefore could not be tor 
the pardon of sin, as Campbell's system teaches, but 
for a cleansing from the defilement of sin, a distinc- 
tion that h« has failed to see. 

In fact, so far as the writer is acquainted with the 
writings and teachings of Campbell and his followers, 
he has observed that with them there is no distinc- 
tion between justification and regeneration, or pardon 
and purification. Again, Campbell confounds what 
the fathers say of the import of baptism as a symbol 
w^ith its design. Water baptism stands for and rep- 
resents true baptism, the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; 
and as Holy Ghost baptism is regeneration, and this 
regeneration may take place when the symbol is being 
used, so it is proper to speak of this baptism in sym- 
bol as regeneration. As an outward sign it stands for 
the presence of the thing signified. The only con- 
sistent interpretation w^e can give of the teaching of 
the primitive Christian fathers is that which we predi- 
cate on the principle just laid down. They attributed 
that to the symbol which was accomplished by the 
agency of the thing symbolized. The penitent was 
regenerated when baptized with water, because this 
represented the spiritual process. But they never 
taught that regeneration could not take place, and the 
individual not be saved, until he was baptized by 
water. 

Justin Martyr, who suffered martyrdom about the 



144 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

year A. D. 166^ and who, because of his previous 
scholastic training and philosophical culture, was the 
most careful and conservative teacher of the second 
century, says, in his dialogue with Trypho* on the 
subject of forgiveness of sins: ^^ For Isaiah did not 
send you to a bath, there to wash away murder and 
other sins, which not even all the waters of the sea 
were sufficient to purge ; but, as might have been ex- 
pected, this was the saving bath of the olden time 
which followed those that repented, and who were no 
longer purified by the blood of goats and sheep, or 
by the ashes of an heifer, or by the oflFerings of fine 
flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ/^ So 
also he says further on : f '^ By reason, therefore, of 
this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which 
has been ordained on account of the transgression of 
God^s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed and 
testified that that very baptism which we announced 
is alone able to purify those who have repented, and 
this is the water of life. But these cisterns which 
you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless 
to you. For what is the use of that baptism which 
cleanses the body alone? Baptize the soul from 
wrath and from covetousness, from envy and from 
hatred, and lo, the body is pure." Language can not 
be more explicit as to the insufficiency of mere water 
baptism, ^^ which cleanses the flesh and body alone,'' 



* T. and T. Clarke's Translation, p. 101. t Id. p. 104. 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 145 

and also as to the necessity of a soul baptism which 
must be essentially spiritual. But the same writer 
again says:^ ^^But there is no other [way] than this 
to become acquainted with this Christy to be washed in 
this fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of 
sins ; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.'^ 

Xow, it may be fairly asked, Does this writer be- 
lieve in baptismal regeneration or baptismal justifica- 
tion? Can such doctrines be harmonized with his 
teachings, especially with the latter? But lest the 
followers of Campbell should think that we have not 
fully met the argument made from his quotation from 
Justin,t we will give it^ and examine it and see if it 
in any manner conflicts with the views expressed 
above. Justin, in his first apology, says:| ^^ I will 
also relate the manner in which we dedicate ourselves 
to God when we had been made new through Christ; 
lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the ex- 
planation we are making. As many as are persuaded, 
and believe that what we say is true, and undertake 
to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray 
and entreat God with fasting for the remission of 
their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with 
them. Then they are brought by us to where there 
is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in 
which we ourselves Avere regenerated. For in the 



*T. and T. Clarke's Translation, p. 143. 
t'* Christian System," p. 221. 
JT. andT. Clarke's Translation, p. 57. 
l.S 



146 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, 
and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 
Spirit, they then receive the washing with water; for 
Christ also said : ^ Except ye be born again, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' . . . Since 
at our birth we were born Avithout our own knowl- 
edge or choice, and were brought up in bad habits 
and wicked training, in order that we may not remain 
the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may 
become the children of choice and knowledge, and 
may obtain in water the remission of sins formerly 
committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses 
to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the 
name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe/^ 
We have quoted thus extensively, that we might 
not be thought to evade any difficulty. The only ex- 
pression in this whole quotation that bears any real 
resemblance to Campbell's doctrine is, ^^ that they may 
obtain in water the remission of sins.'' Mr. Campbell 
has rendered this ^^ remission of sins by w-ater," evi- 
dently seeing that there might be ^^ remission of sins 
in water " that was not remission of sins by water. 
Remission of sins by icater is his doctrine; and we 
squarely contradict his translation of sv to) uoazc — by 
w^ater." It is a translation to bolster up a theory. 
We are ready to admit, and always have been, that re- 
mission of sins may take place in baptism if the proper 
conditions of faith and repentance exist, and whenever 
these do truly exist, remission of sins takes place. 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 147 

But the doctrine of Campbell is^ no remission with- 
out baptism, and this Justin does not teach. It is 
very probable if seeking penitents were taught to-day 
to expect remission of sins when being baptized, eithe] 
by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, they would ordi- 
narily attain it then. But bear in mind, that ^^ remis- 
sion of sin in baptism ^^ is a different thing from re- 
mission of sin 6?/ baptism. 

Campbell, however, took care not to quote the 
first part of Justin^s remarks, where he speaks of 
^^ fasting and prayer for the remission of sins,^^ and 
that, too, both by the penitent and by the Church for 
him, for this praying Campbell condemns as useless.* 
It is strange that if Justin^s opinion is good testimony 
in one instance, it is not in another. But Justin, in- 
terpreted consistently with himself, teaches that re- 
generation is a spiritual process, and that w^ater can 
not literally wash away sins, but is only a symbol in 
whose use sins may be w ashed away if repentance and 
faith are present. 

Had we space to examine other of the primitive 
Christian fathers the same facts might be elicited as to 
their real views with regard to baptism. But it is 
unnecessary ; this question is not to be settled in any 
sense by such an appeal. As has been already said, 
the primitive Christians, from the middle of the sec- 
ond century, on down to the establishment of popery, 



* '' Chrigtian System,'' p. 209. 



148 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

attributed great efficacy to Churchly rites and cere- 
monies, until they came to be used as instruments of 
priestcraft, and came to be considered vehicles by which 
the Church conveyed spiritual blessings to the people. 
We much fear that it is this relic of priestly domina- 
tion that Campbell has exhumed '' from the rubbish ^^ 
of the mediaeval ages. 

Mr. Campbell also appeals to the creeds of the 
Reformed Churches for a support for his doctrine ; and 
in this case he has more completely misunderstood 
authorities than in the former. In two instances — 
the Episcopalian and the Methodist Episcopal — he has 
cited the ritual, and not the articles of religion. Can 
it be possible that Campbell did not know the diflFer- 
ence between a ritual and a Church creed ? 

In the Episcopal ritual he gives us a quotation 
from the prayer of the administrator. '^ Almighty and 
everlasting God, who, by thy great mercy, didst save 
Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water, 
and also didst lead the children of Israel, thy people, 
through the Red Sea, forgiving them by thy baptism, 
and by the baptism of thy well-beloved son Jesus Christ 
in the river Jordan didst sanctify the element of water 
in the mystical washing away of sin: we beseech thee^ 
for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully 
look upon these thy servants ; wash them and sanctify 
them with the Holy Ghost, that they, being delivered 
from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ^s 
Church.'^ We have quoted all that is at all material 



AN APPEAL TO A UTHOEITIES. 149 

to Mr. CampbelPs argument, and if there is one word 
in this prayer that gives support to his theory, we fail 
to see it. First, baptism is called a ^^ mystical wash- 
ing.^^ What is a " mystical washing ?'^ Evidently a 
symbol or representation of a real washing, and to 
make doubly certain that this is its meaning, the 
ritual prayer asks for '' washing with the Holy Ghost.^' 
If the baptism brought this washing, why the prayer 
for it by another agency ? And so in the exhortation 
that follows there is nothing more implied than that 
baptism is a mystical washing, which, if properly re- 
ceived by an adult, may bring to him remission oi 
sins and cleansing, not for the first time, but for all the 
sins up to the moment of its reception. Campbell fails 
to realize the truth contemplated by all these rituals, 
that, however holy or righteous we may be, we con- 
stantly need divine forgiveness and cleansing. For- 
giveness and cleansing are prayed for in all these 
rituals in the administration of the Lord^s Supper. 

He has cited the Presbyterian Confession on bap- 
tism. Article XXVIII, Section 1, and the only lan- 
guage he predicates his idea upon is the statement that 
baptism '' is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 
of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of re- 
mission of sins.^^ His argument from this, " that this 
Church does not believe her own creed ^^ because she 
baptizes infants, is the completest specimen of mere 
special pleading that can be found even in his writings. 
Baptism as a ^' sign and seal of the covenant of grace 



150 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

and of the remission of sins/^ is something at an- 
tipodes to the doctrine of baptism as a necessary 
condition to the pardon of sin. Abraham ^^ received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised/^ 
(Rom. iv, 11.) Here is a sign and seal of righteous- 
ness, justification, or remission of sins that came after 
this great blessing had been received, yet this is a 
blunder that Mr. Campbell and his followers uniformly 
make of conceiving that sign and seal, in this case, 
is nearly or quite equivalent to condition. All the 
Scriptural signs were signs after the fact, and not be- 
fore; as see Exodus xxxi, 13 and 17, also Deut. v, 15, 
where the Sabbath was to be observed as a sign of de- 
liverance from Egypt, and of sanctification by the 
Lord of the Israelites as his peculiar people. 

To the same intent Mr. Campbell cites the formal 
address in the ritual of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, made by the minister as introductory to the 
performance of the rite of baptism, and also the prayer 
of the minister for the candidate. What was said 
above w^ith regard to the Episcopal ritual, applies also 
to this. A prayer offered for a candidate for baptism 
would most likely be for forgiveness of sin, cleans- 
ing, and spiritual life ; and because it is such, Mr. 
Campbell and his followers immediately conclude that 
this implies that they have never been forgiven and 
cleansed from sin, and can not be until baptized. As 
well might he conclude that we teach by our ritual 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 151 

that the Lord's Supper is a condition to remission of 
sin, for this is the burden of consecrating prayer. 

This will suffice for the so-called creeds. A fur- 
ther examination would reveal the fact that in the 
large majority that he cites there is a manifest misap- 
prehension of the signification of their language, un- 
derlaid by his persistent misconception of the nature 
of a sign and sealj as clearly defined by the Scriptures. 

Campbell and his followers also appeal to some 
eminent writers of the reformed Churches in support 
of his creed, such as Luther, Calvin, Scott, Dr. Dwight, 
Wesley, Clarke, Watson, and others. It would be an 
exceedingly tedious and profitless task to examine all 
that these writers have had to say upon this subject, 
and from this educe their real belief. But the reader 
may be assured that whatever of exaggerated impor- 
tance they may have seemed to attribute to the ordinance 
of baptism, they did not believe and teach that it is 
absolutely essential to the remission of sin. Luther, 
although an earnest opponent to Rome in some of its 
fallacious teachings, and more especially to its blas- 
phemous claims, was still under the influence of some 
of its false doctrines ; as, for example, his doctrine of 
consubstantiation, also his belief in baptismal regen- 
eration and a mystical efficacy attached to the water 
of baptism. But the quotation cited by Mr. Camp- 
bell* from Luther's Commentary on Galatians does 



'Campbell and Rice," pp. 460, 461. 



152 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

not teach his doctrine. It simply presents baptism as 
the rite in which ^^the renewing of the inward man^^ 
takes place, and he ascribes this renewing or regen- 
erating to the Holy Ghost — '' regenerated and renewed 
by the Holy Ghost/^ is his language in this comment — 
while Mr. Campbell says : * "To call the receiving of 
any spirit, or any influence or energy, or any opera- 
tion upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse 
of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction. 
of the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal regen- 
eration except the act of immersion.^^ 

The next authority he quotes is Calvin, Insti- 
tutes, chapter xv.f Whatever Calvin has here said 
in this extensive quotation, must be limited by what 
he lays down primarily as the ends, or design, of the 
sacrament. He says : " Baptism is a sign of initiation 
by which we are admitted into the society of the 
Church, in order that, being incorporated in Christ, 
we may be remembered among the children of God. 
Now, it has been given us by God for these ends, 
which I have shown to be common to all sacraments, 
first, to promote our faith toward him; secondly, to 
testify our confession before men. We shall treat of 
both these ends of its institution in order.^^ Now, we 
ask in this preliminary statement. Does Calvin hint at 
remission of sins as one of the ends or design of 



*" Christian System," p. 202. 

t " Campbell and Kice," pp. 470, 471. 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 153 

baptism? By this preliminary statement interpret all 
he says concerning the design of baptism. But in 
this same citation Calvin has especially and specifically 
disclaimed CampbelPs doctrine. He says : '' For it 
was not the intention of Paul (Titus iii, 5 ; Eph. 
V, 26) to signify that our ablution and salvation are 
completed by the water, or that water contains in itself 
the virtue to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did 
Peter mean (1 Pet. iii, 21) that it was the cause of 
salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance 
of it is received in this sacrament, which is sufficiently 
evident from the words they have used. For Paul 
connects * the word of life^ and the ^baptism of water,^ 
as if he said that our ablution and sanctification are 
announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this 
message is confirmed.^^ A careful examination of this 
quotation will reveal the fact that it is in open conflict 
with Mr. CampbelPs doctrine in three material points. 
First, "our ablution and salvation are not completed 
by the water.^^ Campbell says they are.* " This im- 
mersion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the 
body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt.^' 
Secondly, the citation says that " water ^^ does not 
" contain in itself the virtue to purify, regenerate, and 
renew.'^ Campbell ascribes regeneration, renewing, 
and sanctification to immersion ; f says " water is effi- 
cacious to the washing away of sln.^^ J Thirdly, the 



' Christian System," p. 215. t Id p. 217. % Id, p. 215. 



154 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

citation denies that in any sense baptism is ^^ the cause 
of salvation/^ On the contrary, Campbe]! says it is 
one of the ^^ seven causes ^^ to which the Scriptures at- 
tribute justification.^ The marvel is that Campbell 
would quote such an extract from Calvin in support 
of his views. Yet candor requires us to say that Cal- 
vin here says some things with reference to the virtue 
of baptism as a pledge of remission of sins through 
the blood of Christ, and the impartation of the remis- 
sion in baptism, that seem to harmonize with Camp- 
bell's idea. But let it not be forgotten that Calvin's 
recent connection with Rome will account for his still 
seeking in some way to exalt the rite of baptism as 
an instrumentality to salvation. But when he is in- 
terpreted consistently with his general teaching, he 
will be found to be on the side of evangelical Chris- 
tianity, and not on the side of papacy. 

It is entirely unnecessary to follow Mr. Campbell 
very much farther in his appeal to authorities. The 
controversy might be carried on in this interminably, 
and perhaps no very definite results reached. It will 
suffice to call attention to but one more because it 
immediately concerns us as Methodists. John Wesley 
is cited as giving a very decided support to the doc- 
trine of baptismal remission in the Doctrinal Tracts, 
a small volume formerly extensively circulated among 
American Methodists, and published by the Methodist 



'Christian System," pp. 247, 248. 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 155 

Book Concern. There is one tract on baptism which 
is invariably quoted by the followers of Campbell in 
their discussions with Methodists. There is no ques- 
tion^ and can be none^ that the tract advocates the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But w^as John 
Wesley its author? We think not. It is not neces- 
sary to enter into the details of the argument; but 
suffice it to say that very convincing reasons can be 
given to show that Samuel Wesley^ the father of John 
Wesley^ was its author, and he was always a believer 
in baptismal regeneration. But should we concede 
that John Wesley was the author of the tract, let it 
be borne in mind that he was for a long time in har- 
mony with the Church of England on its doctrines. 
Not until after his conversion did he begin to break 
away from its formalities, and have more spiritual 
views of the conditions of salvation. It is w^ell known 
to those who are familiar with Wesley's writings, that 
no more candid and teachable student of divine things 
ever lived than he. Whenever he discovered himself 
in error, he was prompt to acknowledge it. He has 
left on record his mature views on the design of bap- 
tism. See his sermon on the New Birth : 

^^IV. I proposed, in the last place, to subjoin a 
few inferences which naturally follow from preceding 
observations. 

^^1. And first it follows that baptism is not the new 
birth; they are not one and the same thing. Many, 
indeed, seem to imagine that they are just the same; 



156 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

at least they speak as if they thought so; but I do not 
kuow that this opinion is publicly avowed by any de- 
nomination of Christians whatever/^ Campbellism 
was not in existence then. ^^ Certainly it is not by 
any within these kingdoms, whether of the estab- 
lished Church or those dissenting from it. The judg- 
ment of the latter is clearly declared in their large 
Catechism : 

^^ ' Q. What are the parts of a sacrament ? 

^^'A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one 
an outward and sensible sign, the other an inward and 
spiritual grace thereby signified. 

'''Q. What is baptism? 

'' ^A. Baptism is a sacrament wherein Christ hath 
ordained the washing with water to be a sign and seal 
of regeneration by his Spirit.' Here, it is manifest, 
baptism, the sign, is spoken of as distinct from regen- 
eration, the thing signified. In the Church Catechism 
likewise the judgment of our Church is disclosed with 
the utmost clearness. 

^^^Q. What meanest thou by this word sacrament? 

^^ 'A. I mean an outward and visible sign of an 
inward spiritual grace. 

^' ' Q, AVhat is the outward part, or form, in baptism? 

^' 'A, Water, wherein the person is baptized in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

^^^ Q. What is the inward part or thing signified? 

"^j4. a death unto sin, and a new life unto right- 
eousness/ 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 157 

*'^ Nothing, therefore, is plainer than that, accord- 
ing to the Church of England, baptism is not the 
new birth. But, indeed, the reason of the thing is 
so clear and evident as not to need any other author- 
ity. For what can be more plain than that the one 
is an external, the other an internal work ; that the one 
is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore 
wholly diiferent from each other; the one being an 
act of man purifying the body, the other a change 
wrought by God in the soul; so that the former is 
just as distinguishable from the latter as the soul 
from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost ?^^ 

^^ From the preceding reflections we may, sec- 
ondly, observe that as the new birth is not the same 
thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany 
baptism; they do not constantly go together. A man 
may possibly be ^ born of the water,^ and yet not be 
' born of the Spirit.' There may sometimes be the 
outward sign where there is not the inward grace. 
I do not now speak with regard to infants ; it is cer- 
tain our Church [the Church of England] supposes 
that all who are baptized in their infancy are born 
again ; and it is allowed that the whole office for the 
baptism of infants [in the Church of England] pro- 
ceeds upon this supposition. Now, is it an objection 
of any weight against this that we can not compre- 
hend how this work can be wrought in infants? For 
neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in per- 
sons of riper years. But whatever be the case with 



158 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

infants, it is sure that all of riper years, who are bap- 
tized, are not at the same time born again/^ 

To this might be added extensive quotations of a 
similar import from other of his writings, showing that 
in no sense was Wesley in agreement with Campbell on 
the design of baptism. 

Campbell and his followers often quote Wesley^s 
notes on Acts xxii, 16, where he says : '' Baptism ad- 
ministered to a real penitent is both a means and 
seal of pardon. Nor did God in the primitive Church 
ordinarily bestow this on any, unless through this 
means/^ Here we have on the part of Campbell and 
his followers a persistent confounding of means with 
condition, and necessary condition. That may be a 
means which is in no sense a condition, and much less a 
necessary condition. Everything that helps to the 
sinner's salvation is a means to that end. The Lord's 
Supper has been such a means in many cases ; so also 
a public confession in various ways has been a means 
to the immediate pardon of sin. 

And as to the second part of the statement, as to 
primitive Christian times, baptism being the public 
act of the espousal of Christ, and the breaking of caste 
wdth heathenism, it is probable that Wesley's state- 
ment was true in many instances, as it is to-day in 
the heathen lands. Baptism performed thus, either in 
sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, becomes the means 
by which the confessor lays hold of Christ by faith 
and secures the pardon of sin. But how absurd to 



AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 159 

attribute to the mere means an unconditional saving 
efficacy, and say that the means is a condition with- 
out which there can be no pardon of sin ! 

Methodists have been accustomed to make use of 
a great diversity of means to help the inquiring soul 
to complete heart faith in Christ, and often assure the 
unconverted penitent that if he will exercise true faith 
in the act of baptism he may be saved. If he has not 
been saved then, but w^ill afterward grasp in his mind 
the full significance of his commitment and consecra- 
tion to Christ in baptism, its blessed signification may 
become a means of his salvation experimentally. And 
he may ever afterwards look upon baptism as the 
divinely appointed sign and symbol of his regenera- 
tion, and seal of his covenant relation to God. 

There is a world-wide difference between knowing, 
through the witness of the Spirit, that I was saved when 
I was baptized, and knowing that I have been saved 
only because I have been baptized. In the first case, 
the baptism performed in faith may be a blessed means; 
in the other it is the saving condition that is to fur- 
nish the only evidence of salvation, and as such can 
only last so long as the individual is not a backslider. 
When reclaimed from backsliding, he must have other 
evidence. What shall it be ? It is a grave mistake 
that the doctrines of the reformed Churches render 
any support to this incongruous theory of the design 
of baptism. 



160 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 

The doctrine of Campbell and his followers is open 
to a series of fatal objections, any one of which is 
snfficient to shov/ that it can not be a scheme con- 
sistent with truth. Truth is harmonious^ and revealed 
truth must not be so interpreted that it continually 
conflicts with the soundest dictates of reason and 
common sense. 

The Lord said by the prophet Isaiah^ * ^^ Come, 
now, let us reason together/' placing thereby an honor 
upon the proper use of reason, and especially in the 
matter of pardon of sin. There must therefore be 
unity, consistency, and adapation to human conditions 
and needs in the scheme of salvation. Any interpre- 
tation of it that makes it a failure through long ages, 
and an impossibility under a diversity of circumstances, 
over which free moral agents can have no control, is 
too narrow for the abounding grace of God. And 
Campellism is just such a system of interpretation, as 
we hope to show most conclusively by these objections : 
First, The system of doctrine declares the whole 
evangelical dispensation a failure, absolute and unques- 
tionable, from the days of the immediate successors of 

* Isa. i, 18. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE, 161 

the apostles, until the preaching of Alexander Campbell 
and his coadjutors. Campbell has said : ^ ^^ It was in 
this commonwealth (Kentucky) that this doctrine was 
first publicly promulgated in modern times; and it 
has now spread over this continent, and with singular 
success is now returning to Europe and the land of 
our fathers/^ And in another place he substantially 
makes the same claim. f It is true that he quotes 
the primitive Christian fathers, and some of the creeds 
of the Reformed Churches, and the teachings of the 
leading commentators, to support his theory ; but this 
declaration of the newness of this doctrine is far more 
in harmony wdth the facts than his use of these author- 
ities, as w^e have show^n in a former chapter. It would 
be a very singular circumstance that a doctrine so vital 
as that of the conditions essential to the remission of 
sin should be accepted in creed and teaching, and 
uniformly denied in practice, especially when the con- 
dition required was the observance of a Churchly 
rite. The tendency of religious declension is not 
toward spirituality, but toward form. 

The objection, therefore, is valid, that if this doc- 
trine be true, the Christian Church for fifteen centu- 
ries has been a marvelous failure. The gates of hell 
have prevailed against it from the third century of 
the Christian era until the days of Alexander Camp- 



* " Campbell and Eice/' p. 472. 
V Christian System," pp. 8-10, and p. 180. 

14 



162 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

bell. It must be remembered that the doctrine is 
vital, if it be true. Every sinner saved without im- 
mersion as a condition to the i^emission of sins, is saved 
outside the provisions of the covenant of grace, if saved 
at all — saved alone through his ignorance. What shall 
we think of a doctrine so vital in the Christian system 
as this must be, if true, and yet so obscure in Scripture 
teaching that the great scholars of the Christian era 
failed to discover it, and conform to it ? 

What is true of the past is equally true of the 
present ; for although Campbell and his followers 
have been publishing this doctrine for nearly three- 
quarters of a century, yet the great body of evangel- 
ical Churches have failed to subscribe to it, and have 
therefore failed to find it in the Scriptures. Among 
these are to be found the vast majority of the most 
eminent scholars of this intellectual and critical age — 
scholars thoroughly versed in a knowledge of the 
Scriptures. This failure must be ascribed either to 
obscurity in the doctrine, or persistent prejudice in 
the students of God^s Word. The latter alternative 
can scarcely be maintained, although some of these 
teachers do not hesitate to put the rejection of this 
doctrine on that ground. It is sometimes somewhat 
toned down, and the failure to discover it is ascribed to 
ignorance. Mr. Campbell himself puts it upon this 
ground, at least by implication. He says : * '^ Infants, 



* " Christian System," p. 233. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 163 

idiots, deaf aud dumb persons, innocent pagans, wher- 
ever they can be found, with all pious Psedobaptists we 
commend to the mercy of God/^ Then, further on, in 
order to justify the hard uncharitableness of his doc- 
trine, he says: ^^But such of them [Psedobaptists] as 
willfully despise this salvation, and who, having the op- 
portunity to be immersed for the remission of sins, 
willfully despise or refuse, we have as little hope for 
them as they have for all who refuse salvation on 
their own terms of the gospeV^ But this justification 
will not do. Other Christian denominations do not 
deny salvation to the penitent believer. Nor do they 
hold any view that compels them to unchristianize 
honest inquirers after the truth as it is in Christ. 

Second. Akin to the objection just urged is this: 
the doctrine makes it possible for the most perfect 
human virtue, holiness, and devotion to Christ and his 
cause to exist, without a fulfillment of all the condi- 
tions of pardon of sin. Such names as Luther, Me- 
lanchthon, Ridley, Latimer, Jerome of Prague, Huss, 
Wesley, Fletcher, Payson, Guthrie, and Asbury will 
occur to the reader, and a countless unnamed host be- 
sides, who have toiled, sacrificed, suffered, denied them- 
selves, wrought righteousness, and were Christian ben- 
efactors to the sin-oppressed world. And yet they 
failed in so essential a matter as the conditions of the 
pardon of sin. It w^as in no minor matter, no in- 
significant thing, in which they came short. It was 
nothing less than the converting act; for Mr. Camp- 



164 ERROES OF CAMPBELLISM. 

bell says : * " Immersion was [is] the act of turning 
to God. . . . And from the day of Pentecost to 
the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no per- 
son was said to be converted^ or to turn to God, until 
he was buried in and raised up out of the w^ater/^ 
And yet by the Savior's criterion we must know these 
unconverted persons to be his, for he says : " By their 
fruits ye shall know them/' Where is the follower 
of Campbell that has brought forth more of the fruits 
of righteousness in holy consecrated living, than many 
to be found in the Psedobaptist Churches? 

Let it be observed that this righteousness must 
exist without a fulfillment of the conditions to the 
pardon of sinners — sinners unpardoned, yet bringing 
forth all the fruits of righteousness. 

Besides, these claim a consciousness of pardoned 
sin in ^^ joy and peace in the Holy Ghost.'' Mr. Camp- 
bell's reply to this is : f ^^ How far they may be happy 
in the peace of God and the hope of heaven, I pre- 
sume not to say. And we know so much of human 
nature as to say, that he that imagines himself par- 
doned will be as happy as he that is really so. But 
one thing we do know, that none can rationally and 
with certainty enjoy the peace of God and hope of 
heaven but they who intelligently, and in full faith, 
are born of water or immersed for the remission of 
sins." It is plain from this statement, so positively 



' Christian System/' p. 209. t Id, p. 234. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 165 

macle^ that Mr. Campbell^ and likewise his followers, 
predicate their assurance on their infallibility. If they 
know, as he claims in the citation above, that immersion 
in order to remission of sins is a necessary condition, 
then they have assuranceof salvation. But if there is 
the least particle of question as to this being a true 
doctrine, there is just so much uncertainty in their 
assurance, and they only ''imagine^' they are saved. 

But what must be the confusion in the mind of 
any one who could perpetrate the following : * " And 
as the testimony of God, and not conceit, imagination, 
nor our reason upon what passes in our minds, is the 
ground of our certainty, we see and feel Ave have an 
assurance which they can not have?^^ There must first 
be the ^^ conceit ^^ that despite the culture, piety, and 
devotion of the residue of Christendom, he has dis- 
covered the truth w^hich they failed to discover, and 
that he knows with certainty that he is right. He 
fails to see what ought to be obvious to any careful 
reasoner, that his assurance is predicated alone on a 
process of '' reasoning,^' which must of necessity be 
fallible, and which if it err in any of its steps, leaves 
him without any assurance whatever. But on the 
contrary, the assurance he calls '' conceit ^^ and '' im- 
agination^^ is experimental and subjective, and the 
product of faith in Christ, and actually gives its pos- 
sessor joy and peace. Upon what is the believing 



' " Christian System,'^ p. 234. 



166 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

penitent to base his conclusions, but upon the feeling 
of non-condemnation, his assurance that his sin is par- 
doned? It is all Mr. Campbell or his followers can 
have after they have been baptized — a subjective as- 
surance predicated on their feeling and convictions. 

But according to Mr. CampbelPs statement of the 
case, he is devoid of this assurance, for he was not 
^^intelligently immersed for the remission of sins.'' 
He was baptized by Elder Luce, of the Baptist Church, 
on the 12th of June, 1812.* Now, in the debate with 
Professor Rice, he declares that "some twenty years ^^ 
before this debate, and during his discussion with Mr. 
McCalla, which was in 1823, he first preached the 
doctrine of baptism as a condition to pardon of sin, 
and all his statements go to show that he had not ap- 
prehended his doctrine of baptismal remission until 
eleven years after his baptism. In the paragraph 
above quoted, f he says the experience of the first con- 
verts — that is, the primitive Christians — shows the 
difference between their immersion and the immer- 
sions or sprinklings of modern gospels. Now, then, 
what is the difference between an immersion by the 
Baptists and an immersion by him or his followers? 
Solely a difference in design. Did A. Campbell de- 
sign the remission of sin in his immersion ? He sim- 
ply received it on the belief that it was the proper 



* " Memoirs of A. Campbell," p. 396. 
t^* Christian System," p. 234. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 167 

mode, or, as he would say, ^^ action,^^ in baptism. His 
was therefore one of the immersions he condemns, 
and, ex necessitate rei, he is without a certainty of as- 
surance. 

This ad hominem argument lies as against his sys- 
tem ; for conditions of salvation are such as must be 
fulfilled by the free moral agent having God's gra- 
cious pardon in view. Any merely accidental ful- 
fillment of the condition will not suffice. 

A minister of this belief, in a discussion with the 
writer, replied to this argument by saying : ^^ God, in 
his mercy, would not reject any one who sought to 
the best of his knowledge and ability to fulfill the 
divine requirements, and therefore Brother Campbell's 
baptism," being performed in sincerity, was no doubt 
accepted for the remission of his sins.'^ 

The reply was, that the statement concerning the 
forbearance of God was fully accepted, and that it 
required no further stretch of charity to save sincere 
Psedobaptists. Yet still it remains that a matter so 
essential as a condition to salvation is so obscure that 
it took even Mr. Campbell eleven years from his bap- 
tism to apprehend it, and multiplied thousands live 
happy and die triumphant without complying with it. 

Third, Again, it is an unanswerable objection to 
this doctrine, that it is not and can not be consistently 
carried out in practice. 

Many who are not truly penitent believers are 
baptized. Both faith and repentance must be thor- 



1G8 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

ougli and genuine, faith of the *^^ heart ^^ and 
f " godly sorrow/^ 

If they are not truly penitent believers, their bap- 
tism must not be valid, and Avhenever they become 
such they must be rebaptized. And it will be very 
necessary that they wait at first until they are sure 
that they are truly penitent. The fact is, that this 
doctrine is compelled, by the difficulties that beset it, 
to lay but little stress upon repentance and faith, and 
all upon baptism. 

We are aware that this is disclaimed ; but it must 
be admitted that there is a wide difference among 
those that present themselves for baptism. Some are 
serious, thoughtful, humble, and truly penitent, while 
others evince but very little of these characteristics; 
their profession is a mere form, scarcely producing in 
them genuine sorrow for sin, and any earnest desire 
to be cleansed from it. Now, in this latter class, is 
the baptism a penitent believer's baptism? If it is 
not, then it must needs be performed again after the 
individual becomes a penitent believer. More than 
this, because of the misleading influence of a baptism 
performed under the conditions described above, would 
it not of necessity be an important thing to inquire as 
to the genuineness of the repentance and the faith be- 
fore baptism ? 

The only appearance of an escape from this di- 



*Rom. X, 10. t2 Cor. vii. 10, 11, and Acts xx, 21. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 169 

lemma is to assume that when the individual does be- 
come a penitent believer in the true sense of the term, 
he may appropriate his baptism before performed for 
his salvation. But the baptism by the assumption is 
made an impenitent^s baptism. This is a tremendous 
stride beyond infant baptism. There is no escape 
from this objection, except to claim that all who pre- 
sent themselves for baptism among them are penitent 
believers in the strictest sense. A claim that nobody 
will admit. 

Fourth, Again, a very pertinent objection to this 
scheme of doctrine is, that it requires a diversity of 
conditions under the different dispensations of grace — 
one in the Patriarchal age, another in the Mosaic, 
and still another in the Christian — thus destroying the 
unity of the divine plan. Yea, more, the Savior broke 
in upon the established divine plan by saving the sick 
of the palsy,^ the woman that was a sinner,t and the 
thief on the cross, J outside the established conditions, 
and simply upon repentance and faith. It has been 
fully shown in a preceding chapter how baseless the 
assumptions of this doctrine of positive institutes; 
but the objection alleged is, that it makes God vary 
in the conditions to the pardon of sins in the differ- 
ent dispensations. It is not a sufficient answer to this 
objection that God required duties under the Mosaic 
dispensation that he does not now require. These 



* Matt, ix, 2. t Luke vii, 48. t Luke xxiii, 43. 

15 



170 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

duties were not conditions to the pardon of sin, but 
obligations belonging to a righteous life. God is no 
respecter of persons in the conditions to salvation, 
and can not be, for he is just and impartial. Repent- 
ance and faith are universal and indisputable condi- 
tions. Rites are in no sense necessary, but are simply 
expressions of faith, which may, and does, exist with- 
out them. 

Fifth. We object to this doctrine because it can 
not be preached, and can not be made applicable 
to the conditions and circumstances of all sinners. 
Christians may, and often do, backslide ; and when 
they are reclaimed they must repent of their sins, be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ as at first, and, if bap- 
tism is a part of the condition, they should be bap- 
tized. But Campbell and his followers will not 
rebaptize; therefore they occupy this anomalous po- 
sition, that they refuse to a sinner a part of the con- 
dition to salvation, or they say the conditions to sal- 
vation are not the same to all penitent believers. 

An attempt is made to evade this difficulty by 
claiming that baptized persons are naturalized citi- 
zens of the kingdom of Christ, and therefore can be 
restored through prayer. But this leads to this ab- 
surdity that an individual whom God has rejected 
is still, because of his baptism, a citizen of the king- 
dom of heaven. Baptism gives the title to citizen- 
ship, however vile the individual may be ; and if he 
remains unrepentant until death, it will result in this, 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 171 

that a citizen of the kingdom of heaven will reach the 
kingdom of darkness at last, and yet, by virtue of his 
baptism, be a member of the kingdom of heaven. 

Sixth. Again, is it not a singular doctrine that 
makes the outbreaking backslider a child of the king- 
dom of heaven, and at the same time makes an alien 
of the virtuous and upright child of Christian parents, 
simply because it has not been ascertained whether he 
is old enough for the so-called believer's baptism? 
But children belong to the kingdom of heaven ; 
Christ so declares it.* If so, when do they cease to 
be such? AV^hen do they become aliens, that they 
need to be naturalized ? t A child forfeits his place 
in the kingdom, according to Campbell, but a bap- 
tized backslider never. What a jumble of inconsist- 
encies is involved in making this doctrine harmonize! 

Among the denominations of professing Chris- 
tians, there is none that the logic of their position 
more requires to be believers in infant baptism than 
these, for then the Christian could be taught by his 
parents to pray ; but now, being born an alien, he 
has, to use their language, none of the rights of peti- 
tion. This belongs to citizens. Let it be remarked, 
that Paedobaptists do not baptize children to make 
them members of the kingdom of heaven, except in 
its outward or visible conditions, and the right to 
baptize them is predicated on the fact that they are 



* Matt, xviii, 16. t " Christian System," p. 191. 



172 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

already members of the invisible kingdom of heaven. 
But the absurdity of this position does not end here. 
Mr. Campbell makes the assurance of the Christian to 
depend on the fact of his " intelligent immersion for 
the remission of sins.'^ * Now, the backslider, having 
no immersion for the remission of sins as a backslider, 
must be devoid of assurance, or must receive his as- 
surance from repentance and faith exercised by him 
for the remission of sins. But where is the Chris- 
tian who is not conscious of shortcomings, back- 
slidings, omissions of duty, sins of haste and passion, 
that he feels must be forgiven, or he be at last brought 
under condemnation ? If he finds forgiveness, it must 
be '' by repentance toward God, and faith toward the 
Lord Jesus Christ ;'^ f and his assurance of this for- 
giveness can not be founded on his baptism in any 
sense, because the condemnation from which he seeks 
release is subsequent to the baptism. How can he 
make that act accrue to his remission of sin that was 
previous to his sin for which he seeks remission? 
The plain fact is, this doctrine of remission and assur- 
ance runs a tilt against all reason and common sense. 
Seventh, Again, we object to this doctrine because 
it makes that a condition to the pardon of sin which a 
person can not perform for himself. He is dependent 
upon another sinner, who must exercise the priestly 
prerogative of bringing him into the pardon of sin. 



* '' Christian System," p. 234. t Acts xx, 21. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. 173 

It is a sheer evasion to retort that we are dependent 
upon our fellow-men for the word of life. The word 
of life is not a condition to the pardon of sin. We 
use the term condition here in the sense of a free 
moral act to be performed by the seeker. If I can not 
get this word of life, I am not held responsible for it. 
I am only responsible when it is positively accessible 
to me and I reject it. I may be saved without it; 
but I can not be saved without repentance or faith in 
Christ. All the heathen that are saved, are saved 
alone through their knowledge and trust in God, 
through their belief in him as they know him. 

But this doctrine says the penitent sinner can not 
alone perform the conditions, must be lost, despite his 
repentance and faith, unless he has another sinner 
with him to put him into the water. These surely 
are priestly prerogatives without parallel. 

Eighth, Again, we object to this doctrine because 
it makes salvation impossible under numerous circum- 
stances and contingencies, — absence of water, in sick- 
ness, in prison, on a dying bed. It can not be that a 
righteous and merciful God has so hedged the way 
to salvation about with conditions that penitent souls 
must be sent to perdition because of mere physical 
contingencies. There are large territories on this 
globe w^here a sufficient quantity of water could not 
possibly be procured for the purposes of immersion. 
In other words, there are zones where souls can not 
be saved; or else the Almighty must be continually 



174 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

altering the conditions of salvation because of these 
physical contingencies. 

There have come under the observation of the 
writer several cases where repentance and faith in 
Christ were exercised on the death-bed, and the per- 
sons received the joyful assurance of salvation, and 
were enabled to die triumphant; and yet baptism was 
not administered at all, because the friends and pastors 
of these sick ones did not believe in any thing but 
immersion. It is an assumption, we think, too ultra 
for the most audacious dogmatism to send these re- 
deemed souls to perdition for want of an immersion, 
and to attribute their joyful assurance to a deception. 
But if they were saved, then it follows that baptism 
is not a necessary condition to the pardon of sin. 
But repentance and faith were necessary, and it is this 
element of necessity that enters into all conditions 
of salvation. 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 175 



CHAPTER XIV. 

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VERSUS WORKS. 

Faith in Christ as the only antecedent and neces- 
sary condition to the pardon of sin or to justification, 
is the great and distinguishing doctrine of the Refor- 
mation. It was from this invulnerable bulwark of 
gospel truth that the papacy was assailed and de- 
feated. Yet it is this doctrine that meets the most 
bitter antagonism from Mr. Campbell and his fol- 
lowers. It is the word only, in the evangelical creeds, 
that awakens their most intense opposition. They as- 
sume that justification by faith onlyj means justification 
without Christ, without the word of truth, without 
grace, etc.^ They usually quote a fraction of the 
ninth article of the Methodist Articles of Religion, 
and present it to the public as teaching that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church holds that the sinner is 
justified without grace^ without Christ, without any 
other agency or instrumentality than faith. The 
writer once received a challenge for a discussion from 
one of their representative men^ who asked him to 
affirm the words ; '' Wherefore^ that we are justified 
by faith alone is a most wholesome doctrine and very 



'Christian System," p. 247. 



176 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

full of comfort/^ To tins he responded: ^^ These 
words, in separation from the rest of the article, do 
not represent our belief; but I am quite willing to 
affirm the entire article; will you deny it?^^ To 
which he replied that he did not wish to deny the 
whole proposition. This incident is given to show 
the fact of the misrepresentation of our doctrine so 
prevalent among them. Some Methodist ministers 
have been drawn by them into an affirmation of this 
fragment of this article. 

The article, as a whole, sets forth an unassailable 
statement of doctrine, and the first part of it clearly 
defines what is meant by the conclusion with which 
the article ends. " We are accounted righteous before 
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus 
Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or de- 
servings.^^ It is plain to any unprejudiced reader 
that ^^ faith only^^ is faith in Christ. Faith must 
have an object, and that is defined in a former 
part of the article. It is plain also that " faith 
only^' is in antithesis to ^^ our own works and deserv- 
ings.^^ " It is by faith that it might be by grace.^^ * 
Yet the followers of A. Campbell scarcely refer 
to this article of religion that they do not misrepre- 
sent it and the teaching of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

What is the question at issue ? Simply this : On 

* Kom. iv, 16. 



JUSTIFICA TION BY FA ITIL 1 7 7 

what condition can the penitent sinner be justified? 
Not what God must do or Christ has done to make 
justification possible; not what must be done ^ov sin- 
ners who are ignorant of the plan of salvation; not 
what impenitent sinners must do; but what must the 
penitent sinner do, who, like the Philippian jailer, 
asks, ^^What must I do to be saved ?^^^ It simply 
serves to produce confusion to begin to talk of '' seven 
causes ^^ of justification. It is readily admitted that 
there are causes meritorious, efficacious, gracious, in- 
strumental, helpful; but what is the conditional q^wsq, 
the act the sinner must perform as a condition to the 
pardon of sin. 

Again, let it be borne in mind, that it is not what 
the Christian must do to be justified as a Christian. 
The Christian must obey the divine commandments to 
the best of his ability — all the commands. Among these, 
and only important as a Churchly rite, is baptism by 
water. This distinction, so obvious to unbiased stu- 
dents of the divine economy, clearly reconciles the 
apostle James's statements with the teachings of the 
apostle Paul. (James ii, 17-26.) James is treating 
of the justification of the righteous, not of sinners. 
Abraham is justified by faith and works before God 
when he offers up Isaac twenty-two years after he 
was justified by faith without works, according to the 
apostle Paul. (Rom. iv^ 1-12.) 



* Acts xvi, 30. 



178 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

Campbell and his followers are ready on all occasions 
to cite the apostle James as condemning the doctrine of 
the justification of the penitent sinner by faith alone, and 
as supporting their theory of justification by baptism. 
And in so doing they present themselves in the in- 
consistent attitude of at one time holding that baptism 
is one of the works upon which sinners are justified, 
and then again that it is not a work. For by their 
interpretation of Titus iii, 5, '' Not by works of right- 
eousness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, 
and the renewing of the Holy Ghost,^^ they make 
^^the washing of regeneration^^ to be baptism, and, if 
baptism, then it is in direct antithesis to ^^ ^vorks of 
righteousness,^^ which are excluded by the apostle as 
not having anything to do with our salvation. (So 
also Eph. ii, 8, 9.) Now, either baptism is or is not a 
^^ work of righteousness.^^ If it is, it does not save 
us; if it is not, then what has the justification taught 
by James to do with the salvation of the sinner? 
The followers of Campbell must decide just what dis- 
position they will make of baptism. If it is a work, 
then it is excluded from the justification of the sinner; 
if they deny that it is a work, then they must give up 
their favorite quotation from James. 

Mr. Campbell seeks to save his system from the 
charge that it teaches salvation by works, by claim- 
ing a peculiar excellence for baptism as an act of 



JUS TIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 179 

faith. Under the caption, * '' Immersion not a Mere 
Bodily Act/^ he says: ^^ Views of baptism as a mere ex- 
ternal and bodily act, exert a very injurious influence 
on the understanding and practice of men. Hence 
many ascribe to it but little importance in the Chris- 
tian economy. ^ Bodily exercise/ says Paul, ' profits 
little.^ We have been taught to regard immersion in 
water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit. The soul of the intelligent subject is as 
fully immersed into the Lord Jesus as his body is in 
the water, as an act of the whole man — body, soul, and 
spirit. His soul rises with the Lord Jesus, as his 
body rises out of the w^ater; and into one spirit with 
all the family of God is he immersed. ^^ 

If ^^ immerson is not a mere bodily act,^^ what is 
it ? The condition of heart and mind is no more 
a part of immersion than it is of sprinkling or pour- 
ing. In other words, the heart can be just as humble, 
trustful, submissive, along with aifusion as with im- 
mersion. And if the essential thing is the purpose of 
heart and mind, why lay the stress on the bodily act? 
What an absurd idea that ^^ the soul of the intelligent 
subject is as fully immersed into the Lord Jesus Christ 
as his body is immersed in the water.^^ This is a 
mysticism that surpasses everything that has come 
within the knowledge of the writer. If baptism is a 



♦"Christian System/^ p. 246. 



180 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

spiritual change wrought within us, then water bap- 
tism Is a mere bodily act — a shadow, a symbol. How 
are we "" immersed ^^ (baptized) into the Lord Jesus ? 
Not into water " into the Lord Jesus/^ for the act 
terminates with the immersion in the water. So if 
you are baptized into the Lord Jesus, some other 
agency must accomplish this work. The very con- 
fusion Mr. Campbell gets into here is a manifest token 
of the inconsistency of the whole theory. 

This doctrine, then, is contradicted by numerous 
clear and explicit passages that ascribe salvation to 
faith without any thing else — faith alone as a con- 
dition. By the word condition we mean that which a 
free, moral agent is required to perform as hi^ personal 
act to secure pardon or justification. Condition must 
be distinguished from means. Christ is the meritorious 
means ; the Holy Ghost, the efficacious means; the word 
of divine truthy the instrumental means ; and baptism 
or the Lord^s Supper, the helpful means, to the per- 
formance of the condition — faith in Christ. 

By faith in Christ we do not mean simply intel- 
lectual faith or the mind's assent to truth recognized ; 
that faith that is the result of evidence understood ; 
for that is a necessitated faith — a compelled faith. 
Man is so constituted intellectually that when he ap- 
prehends the truth, he must believe it. He may deny 
it ; and previous to his knowledge he may refuse to 
see it or the evidence for it ; but if once he sees the 
evidence, he must accept the truth, if the evidence 



JUS TIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 181 

IS clear and explicit. Hence Campbell is wrong when 
he sets forth faith as the simple ^^ belief of the truth on 
testimony, and never can be more nor less than that.^^ * 
Saving or justifying faith is an unnecessitated act of 
the soul. It is predicated upon some intellectual be- 
lief. The believer accepts as true the gospel of Christ, 
and then believes in, on, or upon him as his personal 
Savior. And this faith is the heart faith spoken of 
by Paul. Rom. x, 10 : " For with the heart man be- 
lieveth into righteousness.^^ In this faith the will sub- 
mits to the will of Christ, and the affections cling to 
him as a Savior. Thus intellect, will, and sensibilities 
are employed in this faith. Mr. Campbell's faith can 
be, and no doubt is, exercised by devils, for they know 
the truth of these things. Again, this faith crowns a 
genuine repentance. Whenever a genuine godly sor- 
row for sin exists, it will ultimate in this faith. So godly 
sorrow and faith are inseparable in this, that faith implies 
godly sorrow, and godly sorrow in its completest exer- 
cise takes hold upon Christ. It is sorrow for Jesus' sake. 
By faith only, we mean that faith is that without 
which no adult sinner can be justified, and that which 
when a penitent sinner has, he is justified whatever 
else he may have or not have. Faith in Christ justi- 
fies the sinner without works. No truth could be 
more specifically stated and fully elaborated than this 
has been by the apostle Paul in Rom. iii, 20-31, 



*" Christian System/' p. 53. 



182 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

and iv, 1-25. He here sets forth that the sinner — 
mark, the sinner — is ^^ justified by faith without the 
deeds of the law/^ What law does he refer to ? Evi- 
dently the moral law; for in verse 29 he presents the 
Gentiles and the Jews as the subjects of this law, and 
the Gentiles never had any law but a moral law. 

Again, he sets forth the justification of Abraham 
as a type of the justification of all. Abraham was 
justified by faith Avithout works. " For if Abraham 
wxTe justified by works he had whereof to glory; but 
not before God. For w^hat saith the Scripture? 
Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him 
for righteousness/^ It is clear that the works here 
spoken of could not be works of the Mosaic law, but 
works of the moral law. And then to show how 
completely justification is independent of all ritual 
performances, as baptism, he shows that Abraham was 
justified before he was circumcised. "For we say 
that faith w^as reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circum- 
cision or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
but in uncircumcision.^^ Then he shows the office of 
circumcision, and the relation wherein Abraham and his 
justification stand to all believers. "And he received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; 
that he might be the father of all them that believe, 
though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness 
might be imputed to them also.^^ Now, if this argu- 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH. 1 83 

ment of the apostle teaches anything, it teaches that 
justification can not be predicated upon any works 
whatever. But, if possible, the apostle is still more 
explicit in excluding everything but faith as the con- 
dition to the sinner's justification, in Gal. ii, 16. We 
quote from the Revised Version : ^^ Yet knowing that 
a man is not justified by the works of the law, save 
[marginal reading ^but only'] through faith in Jesus 
Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we 
might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the 
works of the law.^' Now, no amount of verbal shuf- 
fling with '' seven causes,'' more or less, of the sinner's 
justification can set aside the manifest import of this 
language. 

Mr. Braden, in his discussion wdth Mr. Hughey,* 
sums up the result of his investigation of Romans 
iii and iv, after this fashion : '' Now, reasons Paul, 
this was before the law was given, or before he was 
circumcised, or he had done a single thing required in 
the law. Then, if God could justify Abraham before 
the law and without it, he can now justify men after 
the law, w^hen it has been abolished, by faith in Jesus, 
just as he justified Abraham for faith in himself, with- 
out the law, before it was given." A more baseless 
assumption could not well be conceived than this, 
upon which this attempt at an explanation is predi- 
cated. It is assumed that Paul here refers to the 



* " Hughey and Braden," p. 535. 



184 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ceremonial law, an assumption generally made by 
followers of Campbell. In ch. iii, 19, the apostle 
says : '' Now we know that what things soever the 
law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that 
every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be- 
come guilty before God/^ Now, what law is it that 
makes ''all the world guilty before God?^^ It cer- 
tainly is not the ceremonial law. Again, verse 29 
says : '' Do we then make void the law^ through faith? 
God forbid : yea, we establish the law.^' What law ? 
the ceremonial law ? Evidently not. 

But Mr. Braden here admits that Abraham w^as jus- 
tified ^^ before the law, and without it.^' If so, as an 
example for us, w^e must be justified without it; 
namely, the whole law of God, and baptism is a part 
of that law. 

Again, Mr. Braden asks in this connection : ^^ Had 
he [Abraham] believed God, and remained in Ur of the 
Chaldees, would he have been justified by faith alone ?^' 
He w^ould have lost his justification. Was he not 
justified until he started on his journey? The same 
question might be asked at any stage of Abraham's 
life. To show its pertinency, Mr. Braden believes 
that as soon as the penitent believer is baptized he is 
justified. Suppose, then, he stops in a righteous life 
just there, would he be justified? The simple ques- 
tion is, When was Abraham justified? The only an- 
swer is, The moment he believed in God. 

In Eph. ii, 8-10, the apostle Paul excludes from the 



JUSTIFICA TION B Y FAITH, 185 

salvation of the sinner, all works of righteousness, say- 
ing : '' For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that 
not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Xot of works, 
lest any man should boast. For we are his workman- 
ship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. ^^ The 
icorhs that are here excluded, are not simply the works 
of the law, but all good works, especially those that 
belong to the gospel dispensation, for the very works 
that are excluded are the works that come after the 
sinner is '' created in Christ Jesus,^^ — '' a new crea- 
tion. ^^ ^ Xow, Christian baptism is a " good work.^^ 
If so, it must come after the new creation. The doc- 
trine here inculcated is this, that *^ good works '^ must 
have a good source, as good fruit can alone spring 
from a good tree, f I suppose that they will not 
claim that baptism is not a good work, or a work at 
all. If they should do so, then they must give up, as 
already shown, their favorite quotation. Salvation then 
is ^^by grace,^^ and ^^ through faith,^^ and ^^not of 
works," which makes it a salvation through faith 
alone, so far as the human side of it is concerned, /. e,, 
the sinner's condition or act of acceptance. 



*2 Cor. V, 17. t Matt, xii, 33. 
16 



186 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER XV. 

CAMPBEIvLISM ON THE OPERATION OF THE 
HOLY GHOST. 

It is somewhat difficult to get a clear and concise 
understanding of just what Alexander Campbell held 
wdth reference to the influence and operation of the 
Holy Ghost in human hearts. At one time he seems 
to be almost at one with the other evangelical de- 
nominations ; at another^ he seems to hold the view 
that the Holy Ghost does not in any manner impress 
human hearts, aside from the influence of the Bible 
teachings on the understandings and judgments of 
men. One thing is certain, however, his followers have 
reached stability of view in this matter, and very 
promptly reject all immediate impression upon human 
hearts by the personal Divine Spirit. However, there is 
this one point upon which they and their great leader 
concur ; they agree in denying any immediate and per- 
sonal influence of the Holy Ghost upon the heart of 
the sinner previous to conversion. With them there 
is no such thing as conviction by the Spirit. It is 
simply the convincing of the judgment, wrought by 
the naked word. 

As already intimated, consistency requires that 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187 

they deny the immediate influence of the Spirit^ both 
in and after conversion. For if there be such a thing 
as the presence and immediate influence of the Spirit 
upon the heart after conversion, it follows that such 
presence and influence felt must be the testimony to 
such heart of divine acceptance, and at once the theory 
that the fact of obedience to the divine command- 
ments is the pledge of pardon, is set at naught. 
Hence Campbellism can not allow the doctrine of the 
direct witness of the Spirit ; for if this is conceded, on 
what ground can they refuse to accept the salvation 
of many who are not baptized according to their view, 
who testify that they have the witness of the Spirit 
to their salvation? 

But we prefer to let Campbell and subsequent ex- 
ponents of his doctrine state their belief in this matter. 
Mr. Campbell says : * ^^ The Spirit of God inspired 
all the spiritual ideas in the New Testament, and con- 
firmed them by miracles ; and he is ever present with 
the word he inspired. He descended from heaven on 
the day of Pentecost, and has not formally ascended 
since. In the sense in which he descended, he cer- 
tainly has not ascended, for he is to animate and in- 
spire with new life the church or temple of the Lord. 
^ Know ye not/ you Christians, ^ that your bodies are 
temples of the living God?^ ^The temple of God is 
holy ; which temple you are.^ ^ If the Spirit of him 



* '' Christian System, " p. 64. 



188 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, 
God shall quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit 
that dwelleth in you.^ Now, we can not separate the 
Spirit and word of God, and ascribe so much powder 
to one, and so much power to the other; for so did 
not the apostles. Whatever the word does, the Spirit 
does; and whatever the Spirit does in the work of 
converting men, the word does. We neither believe 
nor teach abstract Spirit, nor abstract w^ord, but word 
and Spirit, Spirit and word.^^ 

We doubt if it is posssible to find in the entire 
range of theological discussion a more confused and 
incoherent statement of doctrine than this. At one 
time you are led to believe that its author accepts the 
doctrine of the immediate presence of the Divine 
Spirit in human hearts ; then again this is all set aside 
by putting the Spirit in some indefinable way in the 
word. What can he mean by ^' Spirit and W'Ord '' 
not ^^ abstract'^ from each other? Does the Spirit, as 
a divine personal influence, go along with the word 
to make it more potent than its unattended truths 
w^ould be to human understanding, judgment, and con- 
science ? If he means this, w^e can in thought abstract 
the Spirit in his influence, from the influence of the 
naked word. Again, does the Spirit always attend 
the word, so that to human minds the two are in- 
separable ? 

In the very next paragraph he heightens this con- 
fusion by saying : ^^ But the Spirit is not promised to 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 189 

any persons out of Christ. It is only promised to them 
that believe and obey him/^ And this leads to the 
inquiry, How can this be if the convicted sinner had 
both Spirit and word before, in what sense diflferent 
do the persons in Christ have the Spirit now, than 
they had before they obeyed God? Is the Spirit in 
the word for the unconverted sinner, or is it for him 
just the naked word? If the Spirit and the word go 
together in convincing the sinner, it can not be said 
that the Spirit is not promised to any one out of 
Christ,^^ and on the contrary, if this statement is true, 
the Spirit is not in the word in any comprehensible 
sense. 

But Mr. Campbell says : ^' The Spirit is promised 
to them that believe and obey Christ,^^ to ^^ assist 
them,^^ to ^^help their infirmities,^^ to ^^ produce in 
them the fruits of ^ove, joy, peace, long-suffering, 
gentleness, fidelity, meekness, temperance.^ ^^ How 
can this be, and the Spirit not be abstract from the 
word? And how can it be, and the individual not be 
conscious of it? If he is conscious of a divine ^^as- 
sistance,'' ^^ j^y^ peace, love,'' has he not a direct wit- 
ness of his acceptance with God, and is not that better 
testimony than such an assurance to be deduced from 
the fact of baptism ? 

But Mr. Campbell was forced to define himself 
more perfectly than he has done in the ^^ Christian 
System." In his debate with Professor Rice, he af- 
firmed the following proposition : ^' In conversion and 



190 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

sanctification the Spirit of God operates on persons 
only through the word/^ Now^ in order to get at 
his belief^ there is only one term in the proposition 
that we need to have him define ; namely, sanctifica- 
tion — this he defines * as ^^ a progressive Avork. To 
sanctify is to set apart ; this may be done in a moment, 
and so far as mere state or relation is concerned it is as 
instantaneous as baptism. But there is the formation of 
a holy character ; for there is a holy character as well 
as a holy state. The formation of such a character is 
the work of means. . . . Therefore it is the duty 
and work of Christians ^to perfect holiness in the fear 
of the Lord.^ ^^ So that by sanctification here is meant 
all the subsequent development and culture of the 
Christian character into ripeness for heaven. 

This proposition therefore is explicit as teaching 
that the Holy Ghost does not operate directly or im- 
mediately upon the heart of either saint or sinner. 
We are led to believe that the controversies into which 
this man was drawn by his system of doctrine, com- 
pelled him to take a position consistent with himself. 
The ^^ Christian System ^' was written some nine years 
before his discussion with Professor Rice. We may, 
for this reason consider the ideas advanced in his dis- 
cussion with Dr. Rice as his more mature views, and 
these are the views usually held and inculcated by his 
followers. 



^ " Christian System," p. 65. 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 191 

But the reader may ask, Do they then deny all 
experimental religion? Do they not believe in joy 
and peace as positive facts of Christian experience? 
They claim they do not^ that they do believe in a re- 
ligion felt in the heart. They even talk of the gifts 
of the Spirit — ^^ love, joy, peace, meekness,'' and the 
like — as being the Christian's peculiar heritage, as 
see " Christian System/' p. 267. But when they are 
questioned carefully as to their real meaning, it is 
discovered that this experience is altogether the re- 
sult of subjective mental processes. That is to say, it 
is not wrought by any direct or personal communica- 
tion of the Spirit, but is the result of personal belief, 
a mere deduction from the fact that they have obeyed 
what they suppose are the requirements in order to 
salvation. In other words, there is no spiritual change 
wrought by direct divine interposition, no witness of 
the Divine Spirit. But the change is altogether 
wrought by themselves, and the approval of their con- 
sciences for doing what they suppose is right, is the 
only source of ^^ peace, joy, love,'' etc. So it is at 
once manifest that they do not mean what evangelical 
Christians do by a change of heart or conversion. 
While these last by conversion mean a twofold 
work — a work of the sinner in turning to God, and 
a work of God in pardoning and renewing by divine 
interposition — the followers of Campbell mean simply 
the turning about of the sinner, and the pardoning 
act of God, which takes place only in the divine mind; 



192 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

and the sinner's joy comes from believing it has taken 
place^ because he has obeyed what he believes are the 
commandments in order to remission of sin. 

Now, let it be observed that this is no operation 
of the Spirit in any reasonable sense. It is a misuse 
of language to speak of this being either operation or 
witness of the Spirit. It is simply the influence of 
the word in the convictions as it may be understood 
by a merely fallible being, and the Holy Spirit is in 
no proper sense present. All of this too, as has been 
before indicated, is the outgrowth of the doctrine that 
makes baptism a necessary condition to the pardon of 
sin. It is this legal system that compels the elimina- 
tion of the Holy Ghost in his office of reproving, re- 
generating, witnessing, comforting, helping, from the 
^' Christian System.'' For the sake of water baptism 
as a condition to remission of sins, the Church must 
be robbed of her heritage in the Holy Ghost. 

But we will now review some of the arguments 
by which it is sought to maintain the doctrine that 
" in conversion and sanctification the Spirit of God 
operates on persons only through the word." * 

The first argument is what Mr. Campbell claims to 
adduce from the '' constitution of the human mind." f 
In this connection he claims that '^ all our ideas of the 
sensible universe are the result of sensation and re- 
flection," and ^^all our supernatural knowledge comes 



*/^ Campbell and Rice," p, 611. ^ Id. pp. 617, 618. 



OPERATION OF TEE HOLY GHOST, 193 

wholly ^by faith/ and ^ faith by hearing/ ^^ ... So 
that we have *^ (1) the word spoken, (2) hearing, (3) 
believing, (4) feeling, (5) doing/^ AVe are also told 
in this same connection that ^^ faith is the belief of 
testimony/^ and is the ^^regenerating, justifying, 
sanctifying principle.^^ It will be difficult for any 
one to see how, admitting these assumptions to be 
true, just as Campbell posits them, the immediate 
operation of the Holy Spirit is excluded. Suppose 
that with the word spoken, there goes a spiritual influ- 
ence that does not go with any other than with God^s 
revealed truth. There is nothing in the nature of the 
word or in the constitution of the human mind to pre- 
clude it. Is not this just what our Savior promises in 
John xvi, 7-11: *^ For if I go not away, the Com- 
forter will not come unto you ; but if I depart I will 
send him unto you. And when he is come, he will 
reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of 
judgment. Of sin, because they believed not on me ; 
of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye 
see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of 
this world is judged.^^ The obvious meaning of this 
passage is this, that the Comforter, in precisely the same 
personage that he was to come to the apostles, was to 
^^ reprove the world.^^ It can not for one moment be 
denied that this is the personal Holy Spirit that here, 
under the appellation of ^^the Comforter,^^ was prom- 
ised to the apostles. And this additional fact must 

be taken into consideration in the interpretation of 

17 



194 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

this passage ; namely^ that the fundamental doctrines 
of the gospel were already in the world ; but this 
divine ^^Advocate^^ was to come to be the advocate 
of God's cause with man — in his judgment^ con- 
science^ and heart — was to be sent by the Son from the 
Father. 

Mr. Campbell says ^^ feeling '^ comes by ^^ believing 
or faith/^ and that ^^ faith is the belief of testimony. '^ 
Does believing the ^^ testimony of the apostles '^ al- 
ways and invariably produce ^^ feeling?'^ This will 
hardly be maintained. If it does not, then what pro- 
duces feeling at one time that at another does not? 
And again, is there any reason that can be assigned 
why God can not impress the moral or spiritual sen- 
sibilities aside from the truth ? Let it not be forgot- 
ten that the argument proceeds on the assumption that 
there is something in the constitution of the human 
mind that precludes the possibility of the immediate 
impression of the Spirit. If it can be shown, as has 
been done above, that this is not necessarily so, 
and that nothing is more reasonable than that God, 
who is the author of the human spirit, can impress 
it, the whole argument falls to the ground as utterly 
baseless. 

But the arguments of Campbellism are all aimed 
at a figment of their imagination. Those who believe 
in the operation of the Holy Ghost immediately upon 
the hearts of men, do not believe that this is done 
without and aside from any intellectual convictions, 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 195 

from any belief ^Yhateve^ in moral truth. Intellect- 
ual belief comes from a knowledge of moral truth, 
and this belief is shaped by the knowledge, and upon 
this belief is founded conviction ; and what is to pre- 
vent the Holy Ghost from making this belief the 
basis of a keen " reproof of sin, of righteousness, and 
of judgment?'^ When, therefore, Mr. Campbell said,^ 
'' They have the spirit of God operating without testi- 
mony, without apprehension or comprehension, without 
sense, suceptibility, or feeling,^^ he was either grosslj' 
ignorant of the views of the evangelical Churches, or 
he was indulging in special pleading wholly unworthy 
a controversy on matters so vitally important. The 
misfortune, however, is, that he has bequeathed a very 
large legacy of the same kind to his followers, who 
are wont to make the doctrine of the immediate oper- 
ation of the Holy Ghost a subject of ridicule and ir- 
reverent contempt. 

For a wholesale ex cathedra deliverance, that dis- 
plays the spirit of an arrant dogmatist, the following 
can scarcely be excelled : j ^^ I, therefore, ex animo, 
repudiate their whole theory of mystic influence and 
metaphysical regeneration as a vision of visions, a 
dream of dreams, at war with philosophy, with the 
philosophy of mind, with the Bible, w^ith reason, with 
common sense, and with all Christian experience.^^ 
If vociferous assertion would settle a question, this 



*" Campbell and Rice," p. 619. t Id. p. 619. 



196 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

whole dispute would have been settled loug since ; for 
this is the method with which they customarily meet 
the question. It certainly is not unphilosophical to 
say God can directly impress human minds and hearts. 
He who made conscience to say, ^^ Thou art guilty/' 
^^ Thou art condemned/^ can make himself felt in con- 
science bringing pardon and peace. He who could 
*^ move holy men of old ^' to write his revelation to men, 
can certainly make penitent hearts to feel that their sins 
are pardoned. It certainly is not unscriptural to say, 
^^ The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirits 
that we are the children of God.^^ Nor is it contrary 
to Christian experience ; for the hymnody of the Chris- 
tian ages bears testimony to the fact that it always 
has been the belief of Christians that Christ did send 
the Holy Spirit of promise to abide with the Church 
forever, and the only antagonism this doctrine meets 
is from this very modern source. 

Mr. Campbells second argument is characterized 
by the same total misapprehension of the real issue. 
He says : * '^ Our second argument is deduced from 
the fact that no living man has ever been heard of^ 
and none can now be found, possessed of a single con- 
ception of Christianity, of one spiritual thought, feel- 
ing, or emotion, where the Bible or some tradition 
from it has not been before him. Where the Bible 
has not been sent, or its traditions developed, there 



^''Campbell and Rice,'^ p. 619. 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST, 197 

is not one single spiritual idea, word, or action/^ 
He then infers from these sweeping assumptions that 
the Holy Spirit has never operated on human hearts 
where the Bible or some truth from it has not gone, 
and then makes the following deduction : " If, then, 
he has never operated in this way where the Bible has 
never gone, who can prove that he so operates here 
where the Bible is enjoyed?'^ The assumptions con- 
tained in the first part of this quotation are not only 
wholly unsupported by the evidence, but they are 
positively contrary to fact. People who have not 
the Bible, and never had it, are not absolutely ^' with- 
out one spiritual thought, feeling, or emotion/^ The 
apostle Paul said of the heathen of his day, Rom. ii, 
14, 15: ^^ These having not the law are a law unto 
themselves, which show the work of the law written 
in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, 
and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or excusing 
one another.^^ And this has been found true of the 
heathen of all ages. If Campbell and his followers 
admit the salvation of any heathen without the gospel, 
they must admit that sach as are saved must have had 
'' spiritual thoughts, feelings, and emotions.^^ The fact 
is, the Lord said of the antediluvians, and that, too, 
before a single word of the Scriptures had been written, 
Gen. vi, 3 : ^' My Spirit shall not always strive with 
man.^^ Heathenism has presented such spiritual char- 
acters as a Socrates, a Plato, an Epictetus, a Sen- 
eca, a Confucius, and undoubtedly an unnamed host 



198 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

besides. How can these be accounted for if CampbelPs 
assertions are true? Again, how can the intense, ago- 
nizing search after spiritual truth by the philosopher 
Justin and Clement of Alexandria be accounted for 
without admitting that they were following the lead- 
ing of the Divine Spirit ? 

So far are these assertions from being true, that 
man everywhere, and in all ages, has given indication 
of an unsatisfied heart and a troubled conscience on 
the subject of his spiritual well-being. His smoking 
altars, his ministering priests, his hecatombs of bleed- 
ing victims, his prayers, his lustrations, his attempts 
at expiating his sins by his own suflFerings, all give 
token that something troubles the soul of man in the 
directions essentially and only spiritual. What is it ? 
Is it wholly intuitive ? If it were intuitive, it could 
not be crushed out, as it often is, by those who prefer 
not its guidance, but choose the w^ay of sin. 

Furthermore, the deduction made from this false> 
assumption concerning the heathen, that if the Spirit 
does not operate where the Bible is not, it can not be 
claimed that he operates where the Bible is, is a per- 
fect non sequitur. It simply proves nothing. Mr. 
Campbell admits that in some indefinable way " the 
Holy Spirit is shed upon ^^ the Christian '' richly 
through Jesus Christ our Savior ; of which the peace 
of mind, the love, joy, and hope of the regenerate is 
full proof.^' Now, if this means anything more than 
simply the Bible bringing to Christians promises of 



OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 199 

peace^ joy, love, etc., it is an immediate operation 
upon the heart by the Holy Ghost, along with, and 
additional to, the word. 

But this is a matter to be settled by an appeal to 
God^s Word, which will be fully made when once all 
these objections have been considered. 



200 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

Mr. Campbell^s third objection to the immediate 
operation of the Holy Ghost, is based on the fact that 
those who claim this immediate work are not able to 
make any revelation additional to the one given in 
the Bible, and do not give any new spiritual insight 
to the revelation that was originally given. This ob- 
jection is founded upon the assumption that the Holy 
Ghost can not operate on human hearts, except to re- 
veal new doctrinal truth or to give a supernatural in- 
sight into the truth already revealed. We are clearly 
taught in 1 Cor. xii, that ^Hhere are diversities of 
gifts, but the same Spirit ;^^ and in verse 13, ^^For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we 
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and 
have been all made to drink into one Spirit/^ Here is 
an immediate operation of the Spirit called a baptism, 
which came certainly to some that did not have any 
new truth to reveal, or any supernatural light to fur- 
nish upon truth already revealed. 

Mr. Campbell admits, and his followers likewise, 
that the Holy Ghost in an immediate impartation came 
to the Church in apostolic days. It fell on the house- 
hold of Cornelius, was imparted by the laying on of 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 201 

the apostle^s hands, in fact was enjoyed by very many 
who never felt, and never received any new revela- 
tion. If this is so, the objection amounts to nothing, 
and the facts prove that the immediate operation of 
the Holy Ghost is not confined to the work of the 
giving of a revelation. 

The immediate operation of the Holy Ghost in his 
reproving office is to quicken conscience, and enforce 
upon it the claims of truth and righteousness; in his 
office in regeneration it is to cleanse the heart and 
conscience from sin and guilt; in other words, to 
create the penitent believer anew in Christ Jesus, and 
to bear witness that the sins are forgiven, and that the 
believer is adopted into the family of God. Is not 
this a reasonable theory ? And is there any necessity 
in all this for a new revelation of spiritual truths? 
When Jesus told the sick of the palsy and the sin- 
ning woman, ^^ Thy sins are forgiven thce,^^ there 
was no new revelation in this, save and except one to 
their hearts ; and since he has gone to heaven, has it 
become impossible for him to say the same to human 
hearts by the Holy Ghost ? 

Mr. CampbelPs fourth argument is especially di- 
rected against the Presbyterian view of regeneration ; 
namely, that it is the work of the Spirit that precedes 
repentance, and is the effectual call of the elect sinner 
to repentance. With this mistaken view we have 
nothing to do, and should have passed the objection 
by did not he and some of the exponents of his views 



202 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

regard it an objection valid against all who believe 
in the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost on hu- 
man hearts. When he says: ^ ^^ If then the Spirit of 
God, without faith^ without the knowledge of the gos- 
pel, in any case regenerates an individual, he does so 
in all cases. But if faith in God or knowledo-e of 
Christ is essential in one case, it is essential in every 
other case." Here is a complete misapprehension of 
the doctrine advocated by Arminians at least. Ar- 
minians do not believe that the Spirit of God, ^^ with- 
out any kuov/ledge or without any faith '^ of any sort, 
ever convicts the sinner or regenerates the penitent. 
Some knowledge of moral truth and some faith in the 
good exists wherever a soul is found seeking after 
truth. If there is no regeneration under such cir- 
cumstances, then the heathen are all lost, or some get 
to heaven without being born again. If ^' a knowl- 
edge of Christ is essential in every case '^ to regenera- 
tion, how are the heathen saved, and how are those 
saved who lived before Christ, and just how much 
knowledge of Christ is essential now? This is an 
objection that cuts every way. 

AVherever there is faith in the good, however 
darkened the knowledge, there is faith in God — a faith 
that, with Christian knowledge, would take hold of 
Christ as the Savior of sinners. Such a faith will 
bring regeneration in all cases. 



"Campbell and Rice," p. 620. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 203 

His fifth^ sixth^ and seventh arguments, so-called, 
consist simply in asserting, because gospel truth was 
revealed by the Holy Spirit in human language, that 
therefore human language thus indited is to be the 
only means of converting sinners. The Comforter of 
John xiv, 15, 16, is translated Advocate, because he 
believes this translation best harmonizes with his idea 
that the Spirit's entire influence is to be confined to 
the naked word. He says : ^ '^ Now, as the Spirit is 
to advocate Christ^s cause he must use means. Hence, 
when Jesus gives him the work of conviction, he fur- 
nishes him with suitable and competent arguments to 
effect the end of his mission. He was to convince 
the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. 
In accomplishing this he was to argue from three 
topics: 1. The unbelief of the world; 2. Christ's re- 
ception into heaven ; 3. The dethronement of his 
great adversary, the prince of this world. ^' 

A comment more utterly fanciful can hardly be 
conceived; yet this comment is heard always, with 
but little modification, in the mouths of his followers. 
The plain, simple question is: Does the Savior, by 
the Paraclete, here mean the Person of the Holy 
Ghost, or does he mean only the inspired Word? If 
he means the latter, why did he not use the term that 
IS plain and comprehensible — the Word? Nothing 
could be more calculated to mislead than the term 



^'' Campbell and Rice," p. 622. 



204 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

here made use of^ if this theory of interpretation be 
correct. Attention has already been called to the fact 
that the fundamental doctrines of the gospel were at 
that time in the world, and therefore they could not 
be sent. But Mr. Campbell says ''the advocate must 
use means.^^ In what Avay? Was he simply to re- 
veal truth, or was he also to enforce truth already 
revealed and to be revealed ? If the latter, how then 
was it to be done but by direct spiritual impression 
upon the minds and hearts of men? Is the Holy 
Spirit limited only to words of human language as 
means to reach the hearts and consciences of men? 
But to the Savior's promises to settle this matter — ^ 
John xiv, 16-17: ^^ And I will pray the Father, and 
he shall give you another Comforter \^Paraclete\, that 
he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of 
truth, whom the world can not receive, because it 
seeth him not, neither knoweth him. But ye know 
him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." 
The personal pronouns *^he'' and '^him,'' here used, 
clearly establish the personality of this promised gift. 
His taking the place of Christ with the disciples — 
'^with'^ them and *^in" them — indicates most con- 
clusively that it was not words of truth the Savior was 
promising, but a conscious divine presence. The de- 
clared inability of the world to receive him, at once 
proves that it was not the w^ord of truth about which 
the Savior was speaking ; for this word the world can 
receive and know, inasmuch as it is revealed for that 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 205 

very purpose. According to Mr. Campbell^ sinners 
1st. Hear the word; 2d. Believe; 3d. Obey. He 
therefore can in no wise assert that the world can not 
receive the word of God. Again^ this Divine Com- 
panion was to abide with the disciples of Christ for- 
ever. How? Nob as a revealer of new truth^ but as 
a Comforter. And^ lastly^ he already dwelt with 
them in some of his gracious offices ; but should here- 
after — after the Pentecost — be ^^ in them ^^ as a con- 
tinual abiding guest. In verse 26th of this same 
chapter we have the Comforter clearly designated as 
to personality : '^ But the Comforter^ which ts the Holy 
Ghost^ whom the Father will send in my name, he 
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your 
remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.^' 
Here, also, his office of teacher of things already re- 
vealed is set forth. It is not the naked truth already 
given, left to itself; but this truth ^^ called to remem- 
brance,^^ and its demands, obligations, promises, and 
hopes given force and effectiveness by the Divine 
Spirit's presence. It is to quicken men's spiritual fac- 
ulties that the Spirit is present. 

In ch. XV, 26, we have still another office of the 
Comforter defined : ^^ But when the Comforter is come, 
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the 
Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall testify of me." The Revised Version reads: 
*^ He shall bear witness of me." It is his office to 
bear witness to our adoption (Rom. viii, 16); i. 6., to 



206 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

Christ as indeed the Savi.^r of sinners in the pardon 
of onr sins. 

In ch. xvi^ 7-11^ his office as a reprover of sin is 
clearly set forth: ^^ He shall reprove the world of sin, 
of righteousness, and of judgment/^ The only ques- 
tion of dispute in reference to the meaning of this 
text is, Does it mean that the Holy Ghost shall only 
^' reprove the world ^^ by means of the naked word, 
or does it mean that the personal influence of the 
Spirit shall attend that word to men^s consciences 
and hearts? It is certain that, in whatever sense this 
Divine Personage was sent to the disciples, iu that 
same sense he was to be in ^Hhe world ^^ to ^^ reprove^* 
it. That is to say, if as a personal presence and power 
he came to the disciples in his several offices towards 
them, he also, as a personal presence^ was to be in his 
reproving office toward sinners. The offices of the 
Spirit toward the disciples and the world are relatively 
different, but the personal power and influence is the 
same. It is He, *Hhe Spirit himself,^^ or else the 
very means about which Mr. Campbell has so much to 
say — the words of the Spirit — are misleading and com- 
pletely bewildering. 

The inference made by Mr. Campbell that, because 
symbolical tongues of flame rested upon the heads of 
the disciples at Pentecost, and because they were en- 
abled to speak with tongues, that therefore, under the 
gospel dispensation, the only agency toward the con- 
version of men was to be the words of the gospel, is 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 207 

certainly not a legitimate one. Again, it may be asked, 
Why may not the Spirit attend those words wherever 
read, preached, or heard? Why may not the Spirit 
make them more effective in conscience than they 
otherwise would be? And why may not the Spirit bear 
witness to those that accept the gospel that they are 
accepted of God? Is there any necessary conflict be- 
tween these two facts that makes them incompatible? 
Yet this seems to be the whole burden of the argu- 
ments of Campbellism, that the mediate use of the 
word at once sets aside the immediate office of the 
Spirit. The persistency with which this inconse- 
quential argument is alleged is quite discouraging for 
those who have faith in the ability of the human mind 
to grasp truth with discrimination. 

Another argument made by the advocates of this 
theory is founded upon those passages of Scripture 
that ascribe regeneration, sanctification, and cleansing 
to the instrumentality of the word. 1 Peter i, 23 : 
*^ Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and 
abideth forever.^^ James i, 18: ^^Of his own will be- 
gat he us with the word of truth, that we should be 
a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.^' 1 Cor. iv, 15: 
^^For, though ye have ten thousand instructors in 
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; for in Christ 
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. ^^ John 
xvii, 17: "Sanctify them through the truth,^^ — and 
others; but these will suffice, for the same answer 



208 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

will be pertinent to each and all. It is the old an- 
swer, already repeatedly given, that the admission of 
the word of truth, as an instrumentality to salvation, 
does not necessarily exclude other agencies. If it did, 
it would exclude Christ as the meritorious means, as 
well as the Holy Ghost as the efficacious means. But 
the ^^ word ^^ or ^^ gospel,^^ here spoken of, is not the 
New Testament Scriptures, as these persons suppose, 
but simply the doctrine of salvation through Christ. 
In other words, that '^ God was in Christ reconciling 
the world unto himself.^'* This was the gospel that 
was preached " before unto Abraham,'^ f and also to 
those who fell in the wilderness. X So, it was not 
the ^^ word ^^ as understood by Campbell and his fol- 
lowers, but the truth of the gospel simply in germ, 
but vitalized by the Holy Spirit, that saved them. 
Again, James i, 18, presents these two agencies — the 
personal Spirit and the instrumentality — together : 
^^ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth. ^^ 
So the apostle Paul says; ^^In Christ Jesus I have 
begotten you through the gospel.'^ Here are three 
agencies — a divine meritorious agency, a human 
preacher, and the gospel truth. In 1 Peter i, 
22, 23, we have the relation of the efficacious agency 
and the instrumentality most clearly presented: ^^ See- 
ing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the breth- 



*2 Cor. V, 19. t Gal. iii, 8. t Keb. iv, 2 and 6. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 209 

ren, love one another with a pure heart fervently; 
being born again^ not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and 
abideth forever/^ Here it is distinctly stated that 
their purification was through the agency of the 
Spirit — ^^ purified your souls through the Spirit in 
obeying the truth/^ What is this ^^incorruptible 
seed/^ of w^hich they were born again? Not the word, 
for they were ^^born of'^ this ^^ through the word;'^ 
that is, by two agencies — ^' the incorruptible seed ^^ and 
^^ the word^^ — one efficacious, the other instrumental. 
But it may be asked: ^^Is it not the teaching of the 
passage that ^the incorruptible seed^ is ^the word?^ for 
it is said to ^live and abide forever/ ^^ The Revised 
Version, in the margin, undoubtedly gives the true 
reading: ^^ Through the word of God, ivho liveth and 
abideth/^ It is ^^ God Avho liveth and abideth/^ Cer- 
tain it is that if ^^ living and abiding'^ defines the 
^^word,^^ then ^^incorruptible seed^^ does not define 
it. '^Born of God,^^^ ^^born of the Spirit,^^t and 
^^born from above,^^J are the Divine expressions for 
the blessed state described by Peter. Xever ^^ born 
of the word,^^ but ^^ through the word ^^ ^^ by the gos- 
pel,^^ clearly discriminating between instrumentality 
and efficacious agency. 

Mr. Campbell, in his discussion with Professor Eice, 
offers five more so-called arguments. It may be here 



•1 John Y, 1. tJohn iii, 6. J John iii, 3- 

18 



210 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

stated that his arguments are selected for review^ be- 
cause he usually presents them in a better style than 
subsequent exponents of his theory, who have slav- 
ishly patterned after this man both in doctrines and 
methods of defense. He who reads " Campbell and 
Rice's Debate/' '' Christianity Restored/' or ''The 
Millennial Harbinger/' will have absolutely all of 
Campbellism, both creed and arguments. 

The five arguments referred to above, are in brief 
as follows: First. Paul was commissioned to ''open 
the blind eyes " of the Gentiles, and turn them from 
darkness unto light. * Second. " Whatever is as- 
cribed to the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation is 
ascribed to the word." f Third. " Those who resisted 
the word of God are said to resist the Spirit of God." J 
Fourth. "That the strivings of the prophets by their 
words, are represented as the strivings of the Holy 
Spirit." J Fifth. "God nowhere has operated with- 
out his tcordy either in the old creation or in the 
new." X The first four of these supposed arguments 
are only a repetition in a slightly different form of 
the idea, that the affirmation of mediate instrumentality 
contradicts the personal agency of the Spirit, and 
proves that he operates only by means of his word. 
This has been so fully refuted before that only a passing 
glance at the new examples cited is required. If Paul 
as an instrumentality opening the blind eyes of the 



' Acts xxvi, 18. t " Campbell and Rice/' p. 749. J Id. 750. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 211 

Gentiles proves that mediate means alone were used, 
it proves too much, for tliat would exclude the word, 
for the work is all ascribed to Paul. But it may be 
said that he was to preach the word. So he was, but 
with power sent down from above. He ^^ received 
the Holy Ghost ^' when Ananias laid his hand on him, 
and received his sight at the same time. (Acts ix, 17.) 
He tells us, in 1 Cor. ii, 4, how he preached the gos- 
pel, and what made it efficacious. ^^ And my speech 
and my preaching was not with enticing words of 
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and 
of power;" iii, 6, ^^ I planted^ Apollos watered, but 
God gave the increase." 

And so also, in pre-Christian ages^ ^^the Spirit of 
the Lord God anointed" prophets ^^ to preach the gos- 
pel.""^ It was not naked word or words unattended 
by spiritual power, but the word made efficient by 
the Holy Ghost. 

The last of these five alleged arguments is simply 
the wholesale denial of one part of the question at issue ; 
namely, that the Holy Ghost does operate separate 
and apart from any knowledge, moral or spiritual, but 
not, as he alleges, apart from the Bible plan of salva- 
tion. If this position is true, then it follows that the 
heathen are all lost ; or if any are saved, they are saved 
without any spiritual interposition whatever in their 
behalf, and without any regeneration, as already shown. 



* Isa. Ixi, 1. 



212 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

And, furthermore, the devil has more influence in this 
world than the Almighty; for he can, according to 
the teaching of the Bible, tempt men to sin, while 
God can not help them, except he can secure some 
one to go to them with the Bible. 

All the arguments of Campbellism have passed 
in review, and they are to be summed up in just two 
assumptions : 

1. That the presentation of the mediate means — 
the word — sets aside the immediate agency of the 
Holy Spirit. 

2. That none have been impressed or regenerated 
by the Spirit, who have not had the Bible or some 
part of it. The first of these is a very obvious non 
sequitur, and the second is false as to fact, and leaves 
the vast majority of men in absolute darkness, and 
without the possibility of any fitness for heaven. 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 213 



CHAPTER XVII. 

OFFICES AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

The writer is constrained to believe that had not 
logical consistency required it, Alexander Campbell 
would never have put himself so squarely in antago- 
nism to all other evangelical Christians, as he has 
done in reference to the offices and work of the Holy 
Ghost. His whole argument in the discussion with 
Professor Rice^ as well as his treatment of the subject 
in ^^ The Christian System/^ seems to be shaped so as 
to fence against the inevitable charge of a denial or 
all spiritual impression outside of the moral and in- 
tellectual influence of the Scriptures upon the minds 
of men. But consistency compels the elimination of 
all spiritual impression or impact from a system that 
has for a fundamental condition to salvation a mere 
rite, as baptism ; and makes the performance of that 
rite along with intellectual belief, repentance, and con- 
fession the evidence of pardon. For were the witness 
of the Spirit admitted, and were the conditions per- 
formed, and the witness of the Spirit did not follow, 
then this fact would be proof that the conditions were 
not fulfilled, and the person seeking remission of sins 
would be compelled to repeat them until the Spirit's 



214 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

witness was given. And^ on the other hand, there 
would be left no room for a denial of the witness of 
the Spirit, as claimed by those who, according to this 
theory have not fulfilled the conditions ; that is, have 
not been baptized by immersion for the remission 
of sins. 

But it is marvelous that a system so beset with 
difficulties in explaining the Scripture teachings con- 
cerning the work of the Holy Ghost, and that de- 
mands that the Church of the Christian dispensation 
be robbed of the personal divine presence, should find 
so many supporters. The system runs atilt against 
very many plain and obvious passages of Scripture, 
and is out of harmony with the whole scope of the 
divine plan for the world^s evangelization. The Scrip- 
tures teach that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each 
in his divine personality engaged in the work of bring- 
ing sinners back to righteousness and the favor of 
God. The Father provides the plan and sends the 
Son, and Father and Son send the Holy Ghost. If 
the Holy Ghost is in the world in any sense different 
from the divine omnipresence, it must be by spiritual 
manifestation, and this spiritual manifestation is not 
simply the presence of some words revealed eighteen 
hundred years ago ; for in that sense he has been in 
the world from the time of the promise made to our 
first parents. 

It is hard to conceive that any one can really bring 
himself to believe that the only presence of the Holy 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 215 

Ghost in the world is the presence of the Bible in the 
world. The Bible is no more the Spirit of God than 
the writings of a man are his spirit^ and yet when 
the doctrine of Campbellism in this respect is disrobed 
of the Scriptnral verbiage in which they seek to 
clothe it, the sum and substance of it is this: The 
Holy Spirit gave the Word, and put all the power 
and effectiveness that it has in it when he gave it; 
and since then in no sense is he with it any more 
than the deceased w^riter is in his words now\ So that 
whatever of conviction the sinner is made to receive 
comes from the Word alone; and whatever of comfort, 
joy, and peace the prayerful saint receives, is derived 
from the naked promises of the Word, by process ot 
intellectual deduction — a very cold and cheerless doc- 
trine, sufficient to chill the ardor of the most devout 
saint. But, thanks be to our gracious Father, the 
saint knows it is not true. 

We will now consider the offices of the Holy Ghost, 
as set forth in the Scriptures: 1. The source of in- 
spiration. 2. The source of miraculous gifts. Thes*^ 
are special manifestations, and ceased with the giving 
of divine revelation. 3. Reproving the sinner. 4. 
Regenerating, baptizing, cleansing, purifying, sancti- 
fying, sealing the penitent believer. 5. Witnessing 
to his adoption. 6. Comforting, helping, teaching 
the saint. 

Now, all these offices, except the first two, are in 
a diversity of ways set forth in the Scriptures as be- 



216 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

longing to the entire gospel dispensation. Far back, 
toward the morning of human history^ God said : ^^ My 
Spirit shall not always strive with men/^* So the 
Psalmist, David, under intense conviction for his great 
sin, prayed: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me/^ f 
This W'as the reproving Spirit to which he was cling- 
ing, for he immediately prays : " Restore unto me the 
joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free 
Spirit.'^ X So also the Savior promised that when the 
Holy Ghost came in fuller manifestation on the day 
of Pentecost, he should thereafter " reprove the world 
of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment/^ The im- 
possibility of this being in any other sense than by 
personal impression is seen in the fact that it was the 
Comforter that was to come on Pentecost, that was to 
do this work ; and that manifestation is confessedly a 
personality. The word as an instrumentality had al- 
ready in great measure come. This also is the same 
office that is set forth in 2 Thess. ii, 13: "God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through 
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ;" and 
1 Peter, i, 2 : " Elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit 
unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
Christ.'^ In these two passages the Holy Spirit, by 
his convicting agency, is said to set apart the sinner 
to faith, cleansing, and salvation. Both the Holy 



* Gen. vi, 3. t Psa. li, 11. X Psa. li, 12. 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 217 

Spirit and the truth are mentioned ; the inference is 
therefore necessary, that these refer to two separate 
agencies, the one operating on the mind and judgment, 
the other on heart and conscience. It is appropriate 
to remark at this juncture that the Spirit's sanctifying 
work is continuous, so long as the sinner permits; that 
is, begun in consecration, it continues on through regen- 
eration and throughout the entire life. It is the Spirit's 
work to sanctify, to make holy — sanctus, holy ; facere, 
to make. And this begins with the first impression 
made by the Spirit and yielded to by the sinner, and 
continues on until the great work is wrought in a 
character symmetrical in righteousness. 

In Acts xvi, 14, we have a most unanswerable 
example of an immediate divine influence operating 
upon the hearts outside the word, and even before the 
word, as a preparation for its honest reception. "And 
a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of 
the city of Thyatira, Avhich worshiped God, heard us : 
w^hose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto 
the things that w^ere spoken of Paul.'' Could the 
preparatory influence of the Divine Spirit be more 
clearly set forth ? The Lord opened her heart, so that 
she attended to the word of truth. It was not the 
w^ord that " opened her heart,^^ for that came afterward ; 
and the divine influence was the cause of her listen- 
ing with attention to that word. With this fact of 
inspired history agree the declarations of Paul con- 
cerning the success of his ministry in reaching men. 

19 



218 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

In 1 Cor. iii, 6, he says : ^^ I have planted, Apollos 
watered ; but God gave the increase/^ How did Paul 
plant ? The word of truth in the minds of his hearers ; 
and in the same manner Apollos watered it. How 
did God give the increase? By his Spirit operating 
with this word on human hearts in conviction, en- 
treaty, and reproof. He ^^ reproved of sin ^^ because 
they believed not in Christ ; '^ of righteousness/^ be- 
cause the Son of God was no longer in the world as a 
teacher of men, but had committed this work to the 
Holy Ghost; ^^ of judgment,'^ because the prince of 
this world — that is, the ruling spirit of this world — 
should be brought under condemnation in the hearts 
of men by the Spirit of God. 

The Scriptures ascribe to the immediate work of 
the Spirit regeneration, baptism, cleansing, purifying, 
sanctifying, sealing. These terms represent aspects 
of the same work wrought in the heart of the believ- 
ing penitent, and present an overwhelming body of 
proof of personal contact of the Divine Spirit with the 
spirit of the believer. The terms, with possibly one 
exception, sanctification, contain the idea of actual 
impact. Regeneration is a radical change implying 
divine power ; baptism is an impartation of the bap- 
tismal element to the subject; cleansing and purify- 
ing, as conceptions, have their origin in the fact of 
actual contact with a cleansing element; and sealing 
is the direct impression of the seal upon the instru- 
ment attested thereby. Unless we have, in the plain 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST, 219 

narratives and in the unembellished discussions of the 
Scriptures^ the boldest metaphors and the wildest hy- 
perboles, we must regard these expressions as setting 
forth facts of personal experience, and as referring to 
impressions made not by an instrumentality, but by 
the personal spirit. 

Regeneration is the translation of the Greek 
TtaXeyyevecria^ w^hich occurs twice in the New Testa- 
ment (Matt, xix, 28 ; Titus iii, 5) ; but it can scarcely 
be called in question that y^i^i^dco avcodev {^' born from 
above ^^) of John iii ; ix zou deou yevvdco (^' born of 
God ^^) of John V, 1, and others; and dvayevi^dco ('^be- 
ing born again ^^) of 1 Peter i, 23, refer to precisely 
the same thing. The phrases, ^^ begotten of God,'^ in 
John V, 1, and 18, are translations of the same word 
that in that chapter and elsewhere is translated ^^ born 
of God. '^ So also ^^ begotten again '^ in 1 Peter i, 3, 
is a translation of the same word rendered ^^born 
again ^^ in 1 Pet. i, 23. When, therefore, Mr. Camp- 
bell attempts to make a distinction between being 
^' begotten of God,^^ and being ^^ born of God,^^ as he 
does in " Christian System, ^^ pp. 201 and 207, he makes 
a distinction where there is absolutely no diflFerence. 
Being born of God and being begotten of God are 
one and the same thing, and present the whole divine 
process from the first to the last. FevvdcOj in the 
active voice, may express the divine side, the Spirit's 
work, while the passive voice expresses the result, 
which is a new birth ; not a mere begetting, a begin- 



220 ERROES OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ning of life, but the transition into the complete new 
life. It is but little short of ridiculous to talk of 
" first begotten with Spiritjimpregnated with the word, 
and then born of the water/^* It may support his 
theory, but it is a long remove from being Scriptural. 
Regeneration is essentially a spiritual process. 
The Savior's first declaration is : ^^ Except a man be 
born from above, he can not see the kingdom of God.'' 
^'Ai^codeu does not mean again ; and how any one can 
say that " Nicodemus plainly understood it in the 
sense of agaiii^^^ because he replies, '^ How can a man 
be born again w^hen he is old ? He can not enter a 
second time into his mother's womb and be born," is 
to the writer marvelous. If dvcodev was understood 
by him in the sense of again, he would have repeated 
it both times with the verb yei^i^dco. But the render- 
ing is not necessarily essential to the argument. 
^^ Born again," as defined by the Savior, is a spiritual 
w^ork : " That w^hich is born of the flesh, is flesh ; and 
that \vhich is born of the Spirit, is spirit." As has 
been shown in a former chapter, ^^ born of the water," 
spoken of in verse 5, is no part of the spiritual pro- 
cess, for it is not named where the result of the work 
is spoken of in verse 6 ; namely, ^^ that which is born 
of the Spirit, is spirit," or spiritual. It should read, 
^' That which is born of water and the Spirit, is spirit," 
if water is anything more than a symbol in the pro- 



*" Christian System," p. 201. 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 221 

cess, and the essential part of it, according to Camp- 
bell and his followers. 

In verse 8 the mysteriousness of the spiritual pro- 
cess is evinced by the Divine Teacher. ^^ The wind 
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither 
it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.^^ 
Mr. Braden, in his debate with Dr. Hughey, of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, rendered this : *^ The 
Spirit breathes where he pleases, and you hear his 
voice ; you can not tell whence he comes and w^hither 
he goes. In this way is every one begotten who is 
begotten of the Spirit.^^ * For a wholly gratuitous 
manipulation of the sacred record to make it fit into 
a preconceived theory, it is doubtful if its like can be 
found. What is the imaginary basis of this render- 
ing? riveofia, translated wind, is also the w^ord used 
for spirit ; and then it is assumed that nveco may be 
translated to breathe, although uncompounded with the 
preposition iv, it is never used for breathe in the New 
Testament; and (pcoi^rjv may be translated voice. But 
let us look at this translation, and see if it teaches 
anything. In what sense does the Spirit '' breathe 
w^here he pleases,'^ and how do we " hear his voice ;^' 
how is it that we ^^are not able to tell whence he 
comes and whither he goes f^ and how does all this 
describe the spiritual birth wrought by water? It is 



*"Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 461. 



222 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

to be observed, if their theory of regeneration is the 
correct one, we know all about the breathing, goings 
and coming of the Spirit. Again, what unjustifiable 
liberty is taken with the text, when the last sentence 
is translated ^^in this way is every one begotten who 
is begotten of the Spirit/^ Where, in the text, does 
he find the words '' who is begotten V^ There is not 
one word in the text to answer to this phrase. A 
theory must be badly beset to be compelled to resort 
to such a handling of the inspired text. 

The obvious meaning to any one who has not a 
theory to sustain, is, that the mysterious movement 
of the wind recognized by the physical hearing as 
fact, is a symbol of the operation of the Spirit in the 
work of regeneration, felt in the experience of the 
soul, but still incomprehensible in the mode of its im- 
partation. 

Mr. Campbell has a saying in regard to this matter 
that is uniformly repeated by his followers, and is 
believed by them to be finally crushing as an argu- 
ment. It is this : '' All must admit that no one can 
be born again of that which he receives.'^ * So also 
^' To call the receiving of any Spirit, or any influence, 
or energy, or any operation on the heart of man, re- 
generation, is an abuse of speech, as well as a depart- 
ure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls noth- 
ing regeneration, except the act of immersionJ^ f The 



*" Christian System/^ p. 20. t Id. pp. 202, 202. 



WOEK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 223 

writer has carefully pondered the dictum, to get, if 
possible, an inkling of its meaning, and an apprehen- 
sion of some of the logical force that is supposed to 
belong to it; but has entirely failed. Why can not 
the dead sinner be born again out of sin unto right- 
eousness by receiving the quickening Spirit? ^^For 
it is the Spirit that quickeneth/^ * ^^ Even when we 
were dead in sins hath quickened us together Avith 
Christ.'^ t So also Col. ii, 13; 2 Cor. iii, 6. But let 
us apply this dictum to Mr. CampbelFs theory. Peni- 
tent believers receive the word of the gospel. Acts 
viii, 14; xi, 1; xvii, 11, et ah; and yet these persons 
tell us that we are born again of the word. " The 
W'Ord of God is the seed of which we are born again, 
or renewed in heart and life.'^ % So, Mr. Campbell 
being judge, we can be born of what we receive. 
More than this, baptism is something received, some- 
thing in w^hich the candidate is passive. Hence the 
command to sinners is to be baptized. He speaks of 
the '' act of immersion ^^ being the new birth ; but 
whose act? — the candidate's? No. The administra- 
tor's. The candidate receives the immersion at his 
hands, and if this is a new birth he is born of what 
he receives. 

In entire agreement with the essential spirituality 
of this new birth is the teaching of the apostle Paul 
in Titus iii, 5, 6. ^^Not by works of righteousness 



* John vi, 63. t Eph. ii, 5. % " Campbell and Rice," p. 6G4. 



224 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

which we have clone^ but according to his mercy hath 
he saved us by the washing of regeneration^ and the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior/^ 

Mr. Campbell and his followers may make much 
of the fact that commentators generally understand 
that a reference is made to baptism in the phrase 
^Svashing of regeneration/^ It is far from being 
clear that such is the case. Commentators generally 
follow in the trend of thought or opinion marked out 
by their predecessors. Baptismal regeneration has 
been taught for many centuries by the Church of 
Rome. It was therefore natural that her commen- 
tators should see this doctrine in all passages where 
regeneration was spoken of, and especially where it 
was spoken of as a ^^ washing/^ The Church of Eng- 
land, and the Protestant bodies of Europe generally 
adopted this error of the Church of Rome. Hence it 
is not at all strange that commentators generally should 
conceive that baptism is here referred to; and their 
successors who were in Churches that do not accept 
the dogma of baptismal regeneration, should be in- 
clined, if possible, to accommodate their opinions with 
views so uniformly put forth. But is it not time that 
we should break away from the trammels of mediaeval 
interpretation, and determine these by common sense 
principles? The very language of the text implies 
that nothing physical is referred to. " The washing of 
regeneration'^ is put in direct antithesis to ^^ works of 



WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 225 

righteousness^^ which we have done. If so^ it (bap- 
tism) is not "the washing of regeneration/^ because 
that is contrasted with it. Also^ we are told that 
this "w^ashing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ^^ is something God has done; now, w^hat 
we have done and what God has done are in con- 
trast — in logical antithesis. Again, whatever it was 
that saved us, was of him. '^ He saved us,^^ How? 
By what " he shed on us abundantly/^ through Jesus 
Christ our Savior. Our baptism by water is some- 
thing he did not do ; but the washing of regeneration 
was something that he did perform. It really does 
appear that no stronger language or more forceful 
presentation could be used to exclude baptism by 
water. 

But it may be asked, Why use the term " wash- 
ing?'^ To answer this it is sufficient to ask why not 
use the term baptism, if that is what is meant? Camp- 
bell and his followers say " baptism is the washing ot 
regeneration.^^ The fact is, washing is used with jus- 
tification when it is clearly defined, as by the Spirit, 
1 Cor. vi, 11 : " And such were some of you, but ye 
are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified 
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit oi 
our God.^' 

But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that 
baptism is alluded to in the phrase "washing of re- 
generation,^' does the passage not emphatically teach 
us that "the Holy Ghost is shed'' upon those that 



226 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

are saved, and that it is by this we are saved^ because 
this is what God does of '' his mercy V^ Now, if 
this doctrine that denies the immediate impression of 
the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration be true, 
and the '' renewing of the Holy Ghost ^^ is the influ- 
ence of the word, leading to faith and repentance, it 
follows that we are saved first by the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, then by the ^Svashing of regeneration;" 
that is, the renewing must come before the baptism. 
In other words, as before shown, we must be born of 
the Spirit, or '' begotten of the Word," in the style 
of these teachers before we are ^^born of the water." 

In fact, no theory of interpretation is more pro- 
foundly beset with difficulties, and more effectually 
plunges its advocates into an inextricable tangle of 
absurdities than does this that makes baptism an es- 
sential part of the work of regeneration, and, because 
of this, eliminates the immediate influence of the Spirit 
from any part of the work. 

In harmony with this conception of a spiritual 
birth into the kingdom of Christ, is the conception of 
quickening, met with in several instances in the Scrip- 
tures. Eph. ii, 4, 5 : '' But God, who is rich in mercy, 
for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when 
we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together 
Avith Christ." The Greek C^coonodco really means to 
give life ; a term of very radical significance when ap- 
plied to the new birth. It is also clearly defined in 
the context, in the trend of the apostle's discussion. 



WOBK OF THE HOLY GHOST. 227 

The apostle parenthetically says, in the same verse: 
^^By grace are ye saved ;'^ and then, in verses 8-10, 
says : ^' For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and 
that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of 
works, lest any man should boast. For we are his 
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works/^ Now, here it is first said our salvation is 
not of ourselves; and in the second place, ^^not of 
works f^ and in the third place, that spiritually ^^ we 
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto 
good works.^^ No language could more effectually 
teach the immediate work of the Spirit in our salva- 
tion than does this. 

Then, following on in the same discussion, the 
apostle says, verse 18: ^^For through him we both 
have access by one Spirit unto the Father.^^ " Through 
him^^ means through Christ. It is through Christ, 
and by the agency of the Spirit, we are saved, and, as 
children, are permitted to approach the Father; for 
" likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities : for 
\ve know not what we should pray for as we ought; 
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with 
groanings which can not be uttered.^^ * If the apos- 
tle is here simply aiming to teach the mediate work 
of the Spirit through the word alone, he has certainly 
emj^loyed strange language for a subject so easy of 
statement as this — ^^ quickened/^ ^^ created/^ ^^ access 



* Rom. viii, 26. 



228 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

to God/^ and in verse 20, ^^ a habitation of God through 
the Spirit/^ It is difficult to find language, even in 
the visions of the prophets, more purely hyperbolical 
than this, if the apostle only means the effect of the 
word on the judgments and consciences of men. 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 229 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 

The baptism of the Holy Ghost, which, according 
to the Inspired Word, ^Svashes/^ ^^ cleanses/^ ^^ puri- 
fies/^ ^^ sanctifies/^ ^^ seals/' and ^^ anoints/' is em- 
ployed in these several fiDrms of representation to 
teach the immediate contact of the Holy Spirit with 
the soul in the work of regeneration and sanctification. 

But right at this point Campbellism is prolific of 
contradictions. First, its followers deny that the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost is the ^^gift of the Holy 
Ghost'' promised to the Church. Secondly, that this 
baptism was designed to be perpetual in the Church. 
There are some very cogent reasons, in the scheme of 
doctrine they advocate, why they should maintain 
this. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is something 
that makes sad havoc with the idea of an exclusive, 
dipping baptism; and to perpetuate the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost in the Church as a reality would 
make very forceful the doctrine inculcated by the ad- 
vocates of affusion in general, that water baptism is 
designed to be a perpetual symbol of the purifying 
ministration of the Spirit, and not a representation 
of a death and burial — and that the death and burial 
of Christ. And, again, a baptism of the Holy Ghost, 



230 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

cleansing from sin, stands in the way of remission 
of sin, grounded in water baptism as an essential con- 
dition. For if a direct communication of the Spirit 
were a requisite in each case of regeneration, such 
communication must be a necessary concomitant of 
water baptism, else there would be a conflict. So 
that it is true that, with logical consistency, Campbell- 
ism must deny to the Church this her heritage in 
the gospel. 

But lest it be thought that this is a misrepresenta- 
tion of their views, a few quotations from approved 
authors among them will be given. Mr, Braden 
says : * ^^ All who pray for a baptism of the Spirit now, 
pray not according to knowledge of the word, for that 
they never will receive. Those who pray for it and 
claim it, should show that it was promised to all be- 
lievers in all time; that they can work miracles, as 
all could w^ho were thus baptized anciently. This 
baptism was extraordinary, and has ceased.^^ Another 
author says if ^^In the first place, the work of the 
Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners, is not once, in 
all the Bible, called the baptism of the Spirit. Let 
the reader remember this. Secondly, the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit was only promised to the apostles; 
and, thirdly, Jesus emphatically said the world could 
not receive the Holy Spirit in this form. (See John 



*" Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 458. 
tBrowder's '^Pulpit/' pp. 96, 97. 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST 231 

xiv, 16, 17.) ^^ The writer has had several discus- 
sions with accepted exponents of their doctrine, and 
has found them uniformly to maintain the theory 
above given. It is very evident to the thoughtful 
reader that if the baptism of the Holy Ghost is, as 
these persons claim, a miracle-working endowment 
alone, it must not only be limited to the apostolical 
days, but must be limited in those days to those who 
wrought miracles. Hence, an eifort is made to show 
that the baptism given on Pentecost was confined to 
the twelve apostles. Professor McGarvey, in his com- 
mentary on Acts, sub Iogo, says that the antecedent of 
they in Acts ii is the twelve apostles. ^^ It would 
read thus: ^The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was 
numbered together with the eleven apostles. And 
w^hen the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were 
all with one accord in one place.' It is indisputable 
that the antecedent to they is the term apostlesJ^ This 
entirely gratuitous assumption is made to save a theory. 
If they is limited to the twelve apostles, where, at this 
time, were Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the rest of 
the one hundred and twenty mentioned in ch. i, 15? 
Were they with one accord in another place? They 
had been meeting with the apostles. On what author- 
ity are they now counted out? Be it remembered that 
the pronoun they, in the first verse of this chapter, de- 
fines simply the assembly, and, if this comment is cor- 
rect, the rest of the one hundred and twenty must be 
excluded from the assembly. It will be a startling 



232 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

revelation to irany Christians to learn that only the 
twelve apostles were present on the day of Pentecost, 
But there are other insuperable objections to this 
interpretation. In ch. i, 4, 5, Jesus said to the as- 
sembled disciples on the day of ascension : ^^ But wait 
for the promise of the Father^ which^ saith he, ye 
have heard of me. For John truly baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
not many days hence. ^^ When and how was this 
promise made ? By the prophets Joel and John the 
Baptist. Joel ii, 28 : ^^And it shall come to pass after- 
ward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and 
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your 
old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall 
see visions.^' The Baptist, in Matt, iii, 11: ^^ I in- 
deed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but he 
that Cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost and with fire.^^ Observe now to 
whom this promise was made, and the tenor of it: ^^I 
will pour out my Spirit upon allflesliJ^ Not upon the 
twelve apostles, nor upon a few Jews, and then upon 
a few Gentiles of the household of Cornelius, but 
^' upon all flesh,^^ So also in the promise, as given by 
the Baptist, we have the same comprehensiveness: 
''He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.'' Did 
the Baptist teach that Christ should only baptize the 
twelve apostles? Here is another troublesome pro- 
noun for Professor McGarvey, which it will be ex- 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 233 

ceedingly difficult to limit sufficiently to save the 
theory from helpless ruin. Again^ '^ (he promise^^ 
that is spoken of in ch. i, 4, is also spoken of in ch. 
ii, 38, 39 : "Aw^ ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For the promise is unto yon, and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
as the Lord your God shall call.^^ Now, Campbell- 
ite expositors are wont to make a distinction between 
the gift of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost.* But the promise spoken of by the Sav- 
ior was the baptism of the Holy Ghost; this promise 
Peter told his hearers was unto them and unto their 
children, ^^and to all that are afar off,'^ and this 
promise he had just called the ^^gift of the Holy 
Ghost. ^^ He certainly did not mean the word of di- 
vine truth, for if they repented and confessed Christ, 
and were baptized, as these persons teach, they had 
before these acts received the word of truth. The 
promise was something they were to receive as a re- 
alization afterwards. Again, the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost on the household of Cornelius is — Acts x, 45 — 
called the ^^gift of the Holy Ghost,'^ and in ch. 
XV, 8, it is called the witness to their hearts of their 
adoption into the kingdom of Christ. ^^And God, 
which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving 
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.^^ In 
ch. xi, 16, 17, this outpouring of the Holy Ghost is 



*See ** McGarvey on Acts," Browder's ''Pulpit," p. 51. 

20 



234 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

both called a baptism and ^^ the like gift as unto us/^ 
and the promise of the Savior was especially referred 
to. So also the apostle Paul says to his Ephesian 
brethren, Eph. i, 13: ^^After that ye believed ye were 
also sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise/^ The 
promised baptism, or gift of the Holy Spirit, is a seal 
and loitness to all Christians. 

But to make assurance on this matter overwhelm- 
ingly sure, we have the universality of this baptism 
affirmed in language so complete that it is marvelous 
that any one should attempt to advocate a theory so 
squarely contradicted by divine inspiration. It is not 
possible to make a stronger statement of the univer- 
sality of Holy Ghost baptism on the Church of Christ 
than is found in 1 Cor. xii, 13 : ^^ For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews 
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have 
all been made to drink into one Spirit.'^ Here is a 
formulated statement of a truth. The '' one body ^^ is 
the Church of Christ ; that is, his spiritual body. And 
all who are ^^ in Christ ^^ have obtained this blessed 
relation by baptism, ^^ by one Spirit,^^ ^' whether Jews 
or Gentiles, bond or free.^' 

It is sought to break the force of this plain text 
by a new rendering of the text. Mr. Braden hints at 
it : * ^^ By the direction of one Spirit, or in accordance 
to the command of the Spirit, we are baptized,'^ that 



* "Hiighey and Braden," p. 462. 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST 235 

is, by water. Mr. Browder says:* ^^The Greek 
preposition en is employed to express agency or au- 
thority ; hence^ by the authority of one Spirit you were 
all baptized into one body.'^ In the first place, by 
the agency of, and by the aiUhority of, are two rad- 
ically different ideas, and the ^^ therefore ^^ of the sup- 
posed explanation is a total 7ion sequitur. To confound 
author and ageiit is a piece of exegetical legerdemain 
that we can not permit to pass unnoticed. In the 
second place, the preposition iv, with the dative iv 
he nveufiazcy defines instrumentality, and is precisely 
the phraseology that is used everywhere the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost is spoken of. In Matt, iii, 11, ii> 
TlvEiJixaTc kyiuj. So also Mark i, 8 ; Luke iii, 16 ; John 
i, 33; Acts i, 5, and xi, 16. If, then, Jv means ^^by 
the authority of,^^ we shall have some choice reading 
in these passages. Take a sample. Matt, iii, 11: ^' He 
shall baptize you by the authority of the Holy Ghost 
and fire.^^ The reader may ask, Are these scholars that 
attempt these manipulations of the text in the interest 
of a theory ? They claim to be, and are put forward 
as exponents of this doctrine. They also speak with 
great positiveness in promulgating their interpretations 
of the inspired text. 

But there is still another way of a more recent dis- 
covery, by which it is sought to avoid the difficulty. 
D. R. Dungan, president of Drake University, at Des 



t Browder's '' Pulpit/' p. 77. 



236 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

Moines, Iowa, in a little romance written by him 
in advocacy of this theory of doctrine, makes his 
heroine to say ^ of the promise contained in Acts ii, 
17 : ^^With a literal translation it would read, * I ivill 
pour out from my Spirit.' '^ This rendition we have 
heard from some of their ministers, so that it seems 
to be thought by them to be a way out of the dif- 
ficulty. 

This rendering is founded upon the supposed mean- 
ing of the preposition 0,7:0 in Acts ii, 17 : ix^eai dnb 
roi) flveujuaTo:: fioo. This is made use of in this way : 
It is not the Holy Spirit that is poured out, but his 
truth or revelation that comes from him. Hence what 
is poured out is the word. But it is difficult to see 
how this helps the case ; for if it is the word of inspi- 
ration which is here " poured out ^^ in this baptism, 
then it follows that not only Christians are baptized 
by the Holy Ghost, but impenitent sinners also, for 
they receive this word, which comes from the Holy 
Ghost. But admitting, for the sake of the argument, 
that this rendering is proper, does it not follow that 
Avhat is ^^ poured out^' is a spiritual influence coming 
after the word has been received and accepted ? It 
came upon the household of Cornelius after they re- 
ceived the word. No evangelical Christian whatever 
holds to a conception so gross as this, that the entire 
Third Person in the Trinity was " poured out ^^ upon 



^ " On the Rock," p. 222. 



BAPTISM OF THE BO LI GHOST. 237 

the disciples or any one else ; but what they do main- 
tain is^ that in the baptism of the Holy Ghost there is 
an immediate impartation of the Holy Ghost, in his 
baptizing or purifying influence, to the soul of the 
believer. 

Wonderful discovery this — the baptism of Avords ! 
Why, our Heavenly Father had been doing this from 
the time of the first revelation to men. Strange that at 
the time the revelation was about completed the frag- 
ment that remained should be called a baptism. 

But in Titus iii, 5, 6, we have the Holy Ghost 
^^ poured out abundantly.^^ The preposition d;ro is 
not in this text. The relative oD, ^^ which/' must either 
agree w^ith Xoorpoij, '' washing/' or with IIveoiiaToz 
hftou, Holy Ghost; for they are both in the neuter 
gender, while '' renewing '' is in the feminine gender. 
To construe the relative ^^ which '' in the text with 
^^ washing,'^ will scarcely be admitted by these theorists. 
If, then, construed with the " Holy Ghost,'' the text 
declares that it was poured out on the believer abun- 
dantly. Now, they tell us, in interpreting this text, 
that '^ the renewing of the Holy Ghost " is the influ- 
ence of the word upon the minds and consciences of 
men. If so, how does it come that this relative 
is not in the feminine gender, to agree with reneicingf 
It seems to the writer that the very grammatical struc- 
ture is made to teach that it is not mediate agency 
that comes in contact with the soul, but the Spirit 
himself, and the result is a w^ashing and renew^ing. 



238 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

With this interpretation fully agree other declara- 
tions of the apostle Paul concerning spiritual baptism. 
As for example, Eph. iv, 5 : '' One Lord, one faith, 
one baptism ;^^ Rom. vi, 3, 4 : '^ Know ye not that so 
many of us as were baptized in Jesus Christ, ^vere 
baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death : that like as Christ w^as 
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life ;^^ and Col. ii, 
11, 12 : " In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- 
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh bv the circumcision of Christ : 
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead.^^ Now, it is a 
very reasonable rule of interpretation to hold that the 
forms of expression peculiar to a writer have the 
same interpretation in all places, that he has given to 
them in one or a few instances. The characteristic 
expressions here are '^ one body,^' ^' one baptism,^^ and 
^' baptism into Christ.^^ The one body is Christ, or 
rather Christ^s spiritual Church. The '^ one baptism '^ 
is by the Spirit, and ^' baptism into Christ'^ is spiritual 
baptism. Water baptism never baptizes any one ^^ into 
Christ,^^ but only into the name of Christ ; that is into 
a profession of the name of Christ. Therefore, these 
facts exclude water baptism from all these texts, only as 
it is implied in the antitype, the baptism of the Spirit. 

How do we make this out? Paul defines the ^^ one 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST, 239 

body '^ and the ^^ one baptism/^ in 1 Cor. xii, 13 : 
" For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body/^ 
Apply, then, this definition of the ^^one baptism ^^ to 
the three texts before given, and you make spiritual 
baptism out of all of them. Baptism does precisely 
the same thing in Rom. vi, 3 and 4, and Col. ii, 11, 
12, that baptism by the Spirit is said to do in 1 Cor. 
xii, 13; that is, it baptizes us into ^^ one body^^ "into 
Christ.^^ Hence if water baptism does the same thing, 
it follows that there are two baptisms effecting the 
same result; but there is but " one baptism,^^ and that 
baptism is by "one Spirit.^^ The persistent tendency 
of man to ritualism in religion is seen in the deter- 
mination to read water^ into texts wherever baptism is 
mentioned, unless it is specifically excluded. 

The forms of expression used in Rom. vi, 3-6, and 
Col. ii, 11, 12, do not agree with the idea of a refer- 
ence to water baptism. The controlling thought here 
is a death to sin, and a life to righteousness. It is a 
baptism into Christ, into his death, into death. Now, 
we know that water baptism is "into the name of 
Christ ^^ (Acts xix, 5), and we know, as shown above, 
that the baptizing of the Spirit is "into Christ.'^ 
Baptism " into his death^' is into the saving power 
of his death, and into death is into a death to sin 
and a life to righteousness. How preposterous to 
attribute such overwhelming results to mere ritual 
baptism ! If, as the followers of Campbell claim, water 
baptism produces death to sin in the penitent believer, 



240 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

what produces death to sin in the penitent backslider ? 
For he must be buried by baptism into death also, if 
he would live again unto righteousness. But note 
that this baptism is not, as immersionists claim, in the 
^^ likeness ^^ of a burial, but '' in the likeness of his 
death /^ so '^ our old man is crucified with him, that 
the body of sin might be destroyed. ^^ "The likeness 
of his death ^^ is crucifixion. There is still another like- 
ness indicated in verse 3 : " That like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life.^' 
Now, the true interpretation of this depends upon the 
agency by which Christ was raised from the dead. 
In chapter viii, 11, we are told that Christ was raised 
by the Spirit : " But if the Spirit of him that raised 
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised 
up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal 
bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.^^ So also 
1 Peter iii, 18 : "Being put to death in the flesh, but 
quickened by the Spirit.^^ There is, then, a likeness as 
to agency between our spiritual resurrection, and the 
resurrection of Christ from the dead. The likeness 
of his death is crucifixion ; the likeness of resurrection 
is spiritual power. 

A consideration of the parallel passage — Col. ii, 
11, 12 — will reveal principles in harmony with the 
interpretation just given. Here we are told that this 
baptism is a circumcision — " the circumcision of 
Christ '^ — " made without hands/^ This circumcision 



BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 241 

is most certainly a spiritual circumcision ; for it is not 
physical in its mode — it is made without hands. 
Then the burial with Christ and the resurrection are 
spoken of. The resurrection is through the faith of 
the operation or energy (ii^epyiiac) of God, and here 
his resurrection from the dead is again grounded on 
the operation of the Holy Spirit ; and not only so, but 
the quickening power of the Spirit is spoken of in 
the next verse as the immediate effect of this baptism r 
^^ And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircum- 
cision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with 
him/^ That is, the same power that raised him 
quickened you in baptism. There can be no question, 
therefore, that the resurrection is a spiritual resurrec- 
tion; and if so, the burial must be spiritual. The 
burial can not be physical, and the resurrection spir- 
itual ; they must be similar in this respect. But again, 
we call attention to the fact that the point of compari- 
son is not a likeness of burial and resurrection to 
which a physical immersion and emersion is made to 
have some remote resemblance, but a likeness of 
death and resurrection. In Col. ii, 11, 12, the "put- 
ting off the body the sins of the flesh,'^ that is death ; 
and " risen through the faith of the operation of God/^ 
quickened together with him. In Rom. vi, 5 : " In 
the likeness of his death,^^ "our old man crucified 
with him that the body of sin might be destroyed," 
and " like as Christ was raised from the dead, even so 

also we should walk in newness of life." 

21 



242 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

The followers of A. Campbell contend that the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost was a miracle-working 
gift. This is an assumption wholly gratuitous. It is 
for this reason, however, that they seek to confine it 
to the apostles and to the household of Cornelius. 
They point to the fact that, in both these instances of 
Holy Ghost baptism, there was a speaking with tongues. 
But in 1 Cor. xii, the various gifts of the Spirit 
are set forth, and these are all summed up in verse 13, 
as the result of the baptism of the Holy Ghost which 
came upon all. The assertion that the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost is only a miracle-working ministration, is 
tantamount to the denial that there is any gift of the 
Spirit with the Church to-day; for it was in this 
form that it was promised to the entire Church. " The 
Holy Spirit of promise/^ ^^ the Comforter,'^ " the gift 
of the Spirit,^' each and all came in a baptism on Pen- 
tecost. Hence, to deny the baptism of the Spirit to 
the Church to-day, is to deny each and all of these, 
and is to leave the Church comfortless. 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 243 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT CON- 
TINUED—SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 

The words tvash, cleanse^ purify, sanctify ^ seal, 
and anoint, as used in the Scriptures as synonyms for 
the baptism of the Spirit^ imply direct and immediate 
impression upon the hearts and consciences of be- 
lievers. In but a very few instances are any of these 
ascribed^ even in a secondary and remote sense, to the 
word. But we will examine these supposed instances, 
lest it be thought that there is more in them in favor 
of this theory than really is. John xv^ 3, is often 
quoted as setting forth the cleansing power of the 
word: ^^Now ye are clean, through the word which 
I have spoken unto you.^^ It depends entirely upon 
what is meant by " the word which I have spoken 
unto you.^^ It is maintained that it refers to the gen- 
eral teaching of Christ going before. If such were 
the case, it would be the plural icords, instead of 
word. This '' word/^ speaking them clean, will be 
found in ch. xiii, 10 : ^' Jesus saith to him, He that is 
washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean 
every whit; and ye are clean, but not all.^' It is 
manifest that the Savior here simply speaks them clean 
by an exercise of that power he had to speak sins 



244 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

forgiven. So by the Holy Ghost he speaks to humau 
hearts^ ^^Be thou clean.'^ 

John xvii, 17, is also cited as a proof of sanctifi- 
cation by means of the truth. It was extensively 
quoted by Campbell in his debate with Professor 
Rice, and Braden in his debate with Dr. Hughey. 
*^ Sanctify them through the truth; thy word is truth." 
Now it must be admitted that the word sanctify in 
this case means the same, as applied to the disciples, 
that it does as applied to Christ; for the Savior says, 
verse 19 : ^^And for their sakes I sanctify myself, 
that they also might be sanctified through the truth.^^ 
The word sanctify therefore means consecrate, or set 
apart. It can not mean to cleanse from sin, for they 
were already ^^ clean," ch. xiii, 10, and xv, 3. And 
besides, the Savior did not mean, ^^ even so cleanse / 
myself/^ for he had no sin to be cleansed from. The 
Revised Version gives the key to the whole matter 
in reading the text, " Sanctify them in the truth ;" 
that is, in the use of the truth for their office as 
teachers; and verse 19 may be paraphrased thus: 
^^And for their sakes I set myself apart as their 
teacher, that they might also be set apart as teachers 
of the truth." This is the plain and obvious mean- 
ing of the prayer. One thing, however, is excluded; 
it can not be a prayer for the salvation of the apos- 
tles, and hence is misemployed when used in this 
sense. 

Another passage used by them in the same way is 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 245 

Koin. i, 16 : "I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christy for it is the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that belie veth/^ In the first place^ the pas- 
sage does not affirm that the gospel is the only power 
of God unto salvation, and it would be sufficient 
for all purposes of argument to dismiss it wath this 
remark. In the second place, what is the meaning of 
the term gospel here? These parties seem to take it 
for granted that it means the whole New Testament 
canon. The gospel is the glad tidings of salvation 
through Christ and his gifts unto men. Hence the 
^^ gospel was preached unto Abraham/' * and preached 
to the children of Israel in the wilderness.f It there- 
fore is this simple truth that ^^God is in Christ rec- 
onciling the world unto himself/^ and has no water 
baptism in it whatever. 

For a similar purpose, Eph. v, 25, 26, is cited: 
^^ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the 
Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanc- 
tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word.^^ In reply to the argument attempted from 
this, it is only necessary to call attention to the fact 
that those who contend for the immediate influence of 
the Spirit do not deny his mediate work. But the 
words £v pijfjtau may, with equal propriety, be trans- 
lated ^' in the word ^' — that is, according to the word. 
What word? The word of the prophet Ezekiel, ch. 



^Gal. iii, 8. tHeb. iv, 2. 



246 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

xxxvi, 25-27 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you and ye shall be clean^ and from all your 
filthiness and idols will I cleanse you. A new heart 
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
wdthin you. I will take away the stony heart out of 
your fleshy and I will give you a heart of flesh. And 
I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to 
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments 
to do them.^^ Now, all other passages, where the word 
of truth is spoken of in connection with cleansing, 
washing, and the like, can be explained in the same 
way. No supposed difficulty for the doctrine of evan- 
gelical Christians has been evaded. In fact, all their 
arguments proceed upon the assumptions, already re- 
ferred to, that the instrumentality of the w^ord is de- 
nied. It is not. Simply the additional fact of the 
direct impression and immediate efficacy of the Holy 
Spirit is asserted, and this latter the followers of A. 
Campbell deny. 

The psalmist David prays, after his great sin (Psa. 
li, 7) : ^^ Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; 
Avash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.^^ And 
again, in verse 10: ^^ Create in me a clean heart, O 
God, and renew a right spirit within me.'^ Now, was 
the psalmist praying for the word — for the law of 
God — to be given him to ^^ purge and wash him,'^ '^to 
create in him a clean heart and renew a right spirit 
within him?^^ In his debate with Professor Rice, Mr. 
Campbell was wont to quote from Psa. xix: ^^ The law 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM, 247 

of God is perfect, converting the souL^^ David al- 
ready bad this converting law; what more was he 
praying for? This law had done its work, ^^for by it 
was the knowledge of sin/^ It accused him and con- 
demned him, and he now felt he needed a direct com- 
munication from the great Author of the law, saying 
to his heart : ^' Thy sins are forgiven thee ^^ — " thou 
art clean. '^ 

Mr. Campbell and his followers teach that the nat- 
uralized citizen of the kingdom of Christ has a right 
to petition or pray. Now, in the case of a backslider, 
like David, a petition for pardon and cleansing is of- 
fered, — how is it obtained ? Does God pardon? How 
does the sinner know it? Does he cleanse? By 
what agency does he do it? If it is all done by the 
"w^ord, it is a decided waste of time, even a presump- 
tion, to pray for that he already has in the Book of 
Truth. 

The cleansing spoken of in Ezekiel xxxvi, 25-27, 
manifests the same unmistakable marks of divine, im- 
mediate interposition. The promise to ^^ sprinkle clean 
w^ater'^ upon Israel for the purpose of cleans- 
ing, can scarcely be taken in a physical sense. And 
it is certain that ^^ clean water,'^ as a symbol, does not 
stand for the word. The ^^new heart ^^ and ^^ new 
spirit ^^ promised require an exercise of divine power, 
and the promise of the gift of his Spirit is to ^^ cause ^' 
them ^^ to walk in his statutes and keep his judgments.^' 
No words could better set forth the wide difference 



248 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

between God's operation upon the hearts of men and 
the office of the law of God. The law is in their 
minds already. His Spirit causes them to walk in it. 

The same great truth is taught in Acts xv, 8^ 9 : 
^^ And God^ which knoweth the hearts, bare them wit- 
ness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us; 
and put no difference between us and them, purifying 
their hearts by faith.'^ Let it be noted that this re- 
fers to the baptism of the household of Cornelius by 
the Holy Ghost, and that God thus gave them the 
Holy Ghost to ^^bear them witness,^' and to purify 
their hearts, upon their faith in Christ. And in 
1 Cor. vi, 11, we have, in formulated statement, the 
presentation of the agency by which this washing, 
cleansing, and sanctification are brought about : ^^ And 
such were some of you, but ye are Avashed, but ye are 
sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the 
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.'^ So, also, 
sanctification of the Spirit is spoken of as distinct 
from the office of the truth, in 2 Thess. ii, 13: ^^But 
we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, 
brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath, from 
the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanc- 
tification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.'^ 

With an equally forceful import are those pas- 
sages of divine truth which attribute sealing and 
anointing to the Holy Ghost — 2 Cor. i, 21, 22: ''Now 
he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath 
anointed us, is God ; who hath also sealed us and given 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 249 

the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts/^ Eph. i^ 13: 
^^ In whom ye also trusted^ after that ye heard the 
word of the truth of the gospel of your salvation ; in 
whom alsO; after that ye believed, ye were sealed with 
the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our 
inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased 
possession, unto the praise of his glory.^^ Eph. iv, 30 : 
^^ And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye 
were sealed unto the day of redemption/^ 1 John ii, 
20 and 27 : ^' But ye have an unction from the Holy 
One, and ye know all things. . . . But the anoint- 
ing which ye have received from him abideth in you, 
and ye need not that any man teach you ; but as the 
same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth 
and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall 
abide in him.^^ 

Now there are several points to be noted with ref- 
erence to these passages: 1. Sealing is by direct im- 
press on wax, or the substance sealed. 2. As a seal it 
is a perpetual attestation of the instrument sealed. 
3. Anointing is the direct application of the anointing 
oil to the person anointed. 4. The seal of the Holy 
Ghost, in the first two passages, is called an ^^ earnest '^ — 
a pledge — to their acceptance with God. 5. This 
anointing, sealing, and earnest came after the truth; 
that is, the office of the truth is clearly defined, and 
having received the truth, they afterward were sealed 
and anointed of God by the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit, in his office of a witness, a com- 



250 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

forter, a helper^ abides with the Church of Christ 
through all ages to the end of time. These blessed 
influences are set forth in a quite extensive variety 
of statement in the Scriptures, statement totally in- 
explicable if the immediate impact of the Spirit is 
denied. In the eighth chapter of Romans the apos- 
tle Paul very fully presents the office and work of the 
Holy Ghost in the Christian Church, emphatically 
setting forth the indwelling of the Spirit in the hearts 
of all who are truly children of God, saying, in verses 
14-16 : '' For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God. For ye have not received 
the spirit of bondage again to fear ; but ye have re- 
ceived the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
spirit that we are the children of God.^^ It would seem 
that this needs no comment, that language could not 
more explicitly teach a direct impression of the Spirit. 
Yet such is the blinding influence of preconceived 
theories, that in their interest these plain utterances 
of inspiration are explained away. We are told that 
the Spirit bears witness by the word. Then ^^the 
Spirit itselP^ is the word. If so, by what combina- 
tion of words in language will we be able to designate 
the Holy Ghost apart from the word? The ^^ earnest 
of the Spirit,^^ spoken of in 2 Cor. i, 22, and v, 5 ; 
Eph. i, 13, 14, and iv, 30, is of like import. 

This doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit is 
in consonance with the soundest dictates of reason. 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 251 

Sin is a fact of personal experience, and felt in the 
condemnation of conscience. The knowledge of sin 
comes from a personal consciousness of its existence. 
Without this, no amount of reasoning could convince 
of sin. Repentance is a godly sorrow for sin, a deep, 
pungent feeling of the justice of divine displeasure at 
it. Now, what can be the witness of the removal of 
guilt and condemnation, and a sense of restoration 
to divine favor, but an impression made in con- 
sciousness? The same divine voice that speaks in 
conscience, and says. Thou art guilty, thou art con- 
demned, must say, Thou art pardoned, thou art 
clear. The first is the voice of God in man, the sec- 
ond must likewise be his voice ; " for who can forgive 
sins but God alone ?^^ 

But it may be said, Conscience simply condemns or 
approves according to the knowledge of the right, and 
violation of it or conformity to it; that the individ- 
ual who does what he believes to be right, whether it 
be right or not, will have the approval of conscience. 
This is readily conceded, and, as a fact, lies directly 
against the theory that makes the only witness of 
pardon to consist in a subjective process of reasoning, 
which amounts to this alone : I have done what I be- 
lieve to be right in believing, repenting, confessing 
Christ, and being baptized ; I may therefore conclude 
I am pardoned. But suppose this is a mistake ; what 
then? I have the approval of conscience to an error 
in judgment, and yet have no evidence of acceptance 



252 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

with God. The very fact that human reason is liable 
to err, is a reason why God should say to the truly 
believing penitent heart, ^^ Thy sins are forgiven thee/^ 
and not leave him to the uncertainty arising from 
consciousness of human fallibility. 

But the Holy Spirit, as an abiding companion, 
comforter, helper, and teacher, is taught in numerous 
passages in the Scriptures. John vii, 38, 39 : '^ He 
that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out 
of his belly [^from within him,^ marginal reading of the 
Revised Version] shall flow rivers of living water. 
But this he spake of the Spirit which they that be- 
lieve on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was 
not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet glori- 
fied/^ Of similar import are the promises of the 
Paraclete^ in John xiv, 16, 17, and 26; xv, 26; and 
xvi, 7-13, on which extensive comment has already 
been made. Rom. viii, 26 : ^' Likewise the Spirit 
also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what 
we should pray for as w^e ought: but the Spirit itself 
maketh intercession for us with groanings which can 
not be uttered. ^^ 2 Cor. iii, 3 : '' Forasmuch as ye 
are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, 
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the 
Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but 
in fleshly tables of the heart.^^ 1 Cor. iii, 16 : '' Know 
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 
Spirit ofGoddwelleth in your Also vi, 19: ^^What! 
know ye not that your body is the temple of the 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM. 253 

Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God, 
and ye are not your own?^^ Rom. v, 5: ^^And hope 
maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed 
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is 
given unto us/^ 

These are some of the passages selected out of 
many of a similar import, to be found in the Scrip- 
tures, setting forth the positive presence of the Holy 
Ghost in the hearts of Christians as a helper, com- 
forter, teacher. No amount of exegetical manipula- 
tion can break their force in this direction. 

There are other passages that speak of ^^ access by 
the Spirit,'' Eph. ii, 18 ; '' Habitation of God through 
the Spirit,'' Eph. ii, 22 ; ^^ Strengthened with might 
by the Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii, 16; 
"Grieving the Spirit," Eph. iv. 30; ^^ Filled with the 
Spirit," Eph. V, 18; ^'Supply of the Spirit," Phil, 
i, 19; "Fellowship of the Spirit," Phil, ii, 1; 
" Quench not the Spirit," 1 Thess. v, 19 ; " Made par- 
takers of the Holy Ghost," Heb. vi, 4 ; " Despite to 
the Spirit of grace," Heb. x, 26 ; " Praying in the 
Holy Ghost," Jude 20. There is the actual embarrass- 
ment of riches on this great and blessed truth in the 
Scriptures. It is with difficulty that the writer is 
able to select, out of the many passages teaching, as 
shown above by a great diversity of expression, this 
truth, to set forth the fact of the immediate presence 
of the Holy Spirit with the child of God. 

A few have been selected from the smaller epis- 



254 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ties to give the reader an idea of how ample the 
proof of this doctrine in the Book of divine in- 
spiration. In fact^ the gift of the Holy Ghost is the 
one great gift through which all other good is to come 
to us. In Luke xi, 13, the Master says : '^ If ye then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
children ; how much more shall your heavenly Father 
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him V^ Here 
the Holy Spirit is given in answer to prayer. Can 
this mean the word of truth ? If not, what does it 
mean? Why the Holy Spirit first? Because that 
implies the gift of pardon, regeneration, adoption, 
comfort, help, — all the blessings that belong to the 
children of God. 

In closing up the discussion upon this theme, we 
note some objections that are fatal to the doctrine that 
the Spirit only operates through the word, as Mr. 
Campbell says : * ^^As all the influence which my 
spirit has exerted upon other spirits, at home or 
abroad, has been the stipulated signs of ideas, of spir- 
itual operations by my written or spoken word; so 
believe I that all the influence of God^s good Spirit, 
now felt in the way of conviction or consolation^ in the 
four quarters of the globe, is by the Word written, 
read, and heard, which is called the living oracles.'^ 
The italics are my own, to call the reader's attention 
to how comprehensive the statement. It could be 



- '' Millennial Harbinger," Vol. VI, p. 356. 



SYNONYMS OF BAPTISM, 255 

duplicated from a number of their most able doc- 
trinal exponents. 

If this is true doctrine^ it follows that prayer for 
spiritual blessings is useless. If God does not impress 
himself upon human hearts aside from the word of 
truth, and in addition to it, then the only comfort the 
Christian can get is by meditation on this word and 
a subjective feeling of satisfaction or peace wrought 
Avithin himself by his cogitations. And a prayer for 
the conversion of sinners would be a sinful waste of 
time, inasmuch as it would be mere idle asking of God 
to do what he has commanded the Christian to do by 
the use of the word, and which can only be done by 
bringing its truths home to human judgments, or 
getting those who know the truth to reflect on it. 

Again, from the stand-point of this doctrine there 
is no knowledge of forgiveness of sins; there may be 
belief of forgiveness, but this is founded on fallible 
reasoning, predicated on uncertain premises. For the 
advocates of this doctrine w^ill scarcely assert in the 
face of nine-tenths of the Christian world who think 
differently, that they knoiv they are right as to the 
conditions of pardon ; nor can they claim that they are 
infallibly certain they have completely fulfilled all 
the conditions. No deductions can be more certain 
than the premises upon which they are founded. Then, 
if there is uncertainty in the premises, and uncertainty 
in their process of fulfillment, there is a cumulative 
uncertainty in the conclusion. No consistent foIloAver 



256 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

of A. Campbell can say, I know that Jesus bath power 
on earth to forgive sins. He may say, ^^ I think so, I 
believe so.'^ Nor can he say, ^^ Abba Father,^^ for 
the Spirit himself does not bear witness with him. 
He can say, My fallible interpretation of the Word 
leads me to believe that I have obeyed the gospel, and 
because I have done so, I may believe I am accepted 
of him. 

But then, as shown before, if he become a back- 
slider, and repents, he is absolutely without evidence 
of his reinstatement to divine favor, if there is no wit- 
nessing spirit; for he can not go back to his baptism, 
w^hich he claimed was for the remission of his past 
sins, for the sins he now seeks remission for are sub- 
sequent sins. He may pray ; but praying will bring 
no sense of reconciliation, save and except such as he 
may predicate simply on the fact that he prayed more 
or less earnestly. 

It is truly a doctrine beset with difficulties many 
and profound, and were it not for the theory of bap- 
tismal remission or justification, which anchors the 
scheme to these fatal rocks, it is to be believed that 
the maturer thought of broader scholarship would 
ultimately drift these people over into the wide ocean 
of an all-pervading, gracious spiritual influence, and 
put them into fraternal harmony with the great bodies 
of Protestantism in one fellowship of the Spirit. 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM, 257 



CHAPTER XX. 

SUNDRY OBJECTIONS OF CAMPBELLITE TEACHERS 
TO METHODIST DOCTRINES. 

It is customary with the exponents of this system 
of faith to formulate a general proposition against 
both the polity and doctrines of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, and call upon our ministry to defend them 
in discussion. The writer, on two occasions, has been 
required to respond to the following proposition; 
namely, ^^ The Methodist Episcopal Church teaches 
doctrines, and enjoins usages that are contrary to the 
Word of God/^ This gives them opportunity to make 
a general attack on the doctrines and economy of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and at the same time 
present the supposed simplicity and scripturalness of 
the creed devised and promulgated by Alexander 
Campbell. 

When it is remembered by the reader that this so- 
called reformation started out with the laudable pur- 
pose of bringing about Christian unity among the 
various denominations of Christians, and then the fact 
is taken into consideration that it is a very de- 
nominational Ishmael among the Churches, waging a 
perpetual war of denunciation and proselytism against 



258 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

them, It is a sad comment upon the inability of our 
humanity, ordinarily, to take the proper gauge of its 
own motives, impulses, and principles. 

It is doubtful if there is to be found among the 
denominations of Protestantism one more imperious 
in its claims, narrower in it^ creed, and more unchar- 
itable toward the honest principles of others, than 
this one that claims to offer to the Christian world 
a basis upon which all can unite. 

But we will deal more fully with this subject when 
we come to treat of the distinctive creed and polity of 
Campbellism. At present attention will be given to 
their assault on Methodism — an assault that is made 
wherever their ministers seek to make converts to 
their faith. It is always wdth them a matter of great 
rejoicing when they succeed in winning a convert 
from some one of ^^the sects,^^ as they are wont to 
style the other Christian bodies. The first point of 
attack is usually the denominational name — Methodist 
Episcopal Church. The assumption is, that to take 
any other name than that of Christian Churchy is to 
violate a divine injunction, and build up a division 
and schism in the body of Christ. It is usually main- 
tained by them that Christian Church is a name of 
divine appointment and sanction. In support of these 
assumptions, the following Scriptures are uniformily 
cited : Isa. Ixii, 2 : " Thou shalt be called by a new 
name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.'' 
Then, Acts xi, 26 : ^' The disciples were called Chris- 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 259 

tians first at Antioch/^ Acts xxvi^ 28 : ^^ Almost thou 
persuadest me to be a Christian/^ 1 Peter iv^ 16; 
^' Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him be 
not ashamed/^ James ii, 7 : " Do not they blaspheme 
that worthy name by the Avhich ye are called?'^ Eph. 
iii, 14 : " Of ^Yhom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named/^ Rev. ii, 13: ^^I know thy works, 
and that thou boldest fast my name.'' It is held also 
that the taking of distinctive denominational names 
is condemned in 1 Cor. i, where the apostle Paul cen- 
sures his brethren of the Corinthian Church for say- 
ing, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Ce- 
phas, and I of Christ.'' These quotations make up 
the entire body of Scriptural proof that is offered on 
this point. 

In the determination of a question in dispute, it 
always helps to get a clear idea of the point at issue, 
and what is claimed by the disputants. Let it be un- 
derstood here that it is not a question as to what the 
individual followers of Christ should be called, for all 
agree that they should be called Christians ; not per- 
haps as a name specifically enjoined by divine inspira- 
tion, but as an appropriate descriptive appellation. 
Hence Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, 
Methodists, and all other denominations call them- 
selves Christians, and it is only when they wish to 
discriminate between their several beliefs that thev 
use the term Baptist, Methodist, and the like. Every 
citizen within the United States mav be called a citi- 



260 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

zen of the same. And yet there are times when his 
State citizenship is required properly to designate him. 
It is not dishonoring the name of American citizen 
to say that he is a Pennsylvaniau, a Virginian^ an 
Ohioan. So a Baptist or a Methodist, in avowing his 
distinctive denominational relationship, does not dis- 
avow his relationship to Christ or the name Christian. 
Those who take the name Christian as their distinctive 
denominational name, and refuse to be discriminated 
by their peculiar characteristics or otherwise, display 
an arrogance toward other Christians that should not 
be tolerated. It is this exclusiveness that makes 
division and schism. The Methodist can style the 
Presbyterian or Baptist or Congregationalist his Chris- 
tian brother; but the followers of Alexander Camp- 
bell can not consistently do so. Therefore, the idea 
that Christians who are of Methodist belief, and 
Christians who are of Baptist belief, in taking these 
denominational appellations properly to distinguish 
themselves, ignore the name of Christ, is a total mis- 
apprehension of the real facts in the case. 

For an individual to have said, " I am of the 
Church of Ephesus, or of the Church of Smyrna, or 
of the Church of Pergamos,'^ would not have been to 
deny the name of Christ or Christian ; for these local 
appellations were necessary as designations, but no 
more so than is Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, 
Methodist, to-day. 

But the question is not, What shall the individual 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 261 

folloAvers of Christ call themselves ? — for they all call 
themselves Christians — but^ What shall the Church in 
its organic capacity call itself? The followers of 
Campbell say Christian Churchy and no other denom- 
inational designation^ for this is a divinely ordained 
name. In the first place^ this may be met with a 
square contradiction. The name Christian Church 
has no existence in the Scriptures. The individual 
follow^ers of Christ w^ere called Christians, probably at 
first as a nickname; but certainly not objectionable 
to one who had espoused the cause of Christ ; but the 
Church, as an organization, was not called the Chris- 
tian Church ; and for any denomination of professing 
Christians to make use of this false assumption to ar- 
rogate to themselves the exclusive name of Christian 
Church, and therefore demand to be called the Chris- 
tian Church, is something that proper self-respect in 
other Christians requires that they should promptly 
resent. 

The Church as a divine institution in its univer- 
sality — that is, the body of those whose " names are 
written in heaven ^' — has a divine name uniformly 
given to it in the Scriptures, and that is '' the Church 
of GodJ^ The term Church of Christ does not even 
once occur in the Scriptures — ^^ Churches of Christ ^' 
in one instance Rom. xvi, 16. There is a significance 
in this fact. The Church existed before the Son of 
God became the Christ, and therefore its generic name, 
which belonged to it in all the past ages, w^as per- 



262 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

petuated with it, in order that its unity might be 
maintained. 

But it may be asked, Is not Christian Church an 
appropriate appellation? Most certainly, as an appel- 
lation designating the Church in its catholicity under 
the Christian dispensation, it is appropriate. Still it 
is not a divinely appointed name ; and when this as- 
sertion is made, as it often is by these teachers, there 
is not one particle of Scripture warrant for it. Yet 
it is uncharitable and arrogant for any denomina- 
tion distinctively to style itself the Christian Church, 
as though other denominations were not Christian in 
their faith and doctrines. 

Having thus cleared away the false assumptions 
underlying their arguments, it will be seen that the 
passages of Scripture they are wont to cite are in no 
sense relevant, and need but little further elucidation. 
Isa. Ixii, 2, does not refer either to the name Christian 
or Christian Church, and only such as have a precon- 
ceived theory to maintain would attempt to broach 
such an opinion. In verse 4 of this chapter, we have 
both the old name and the new name given in the 
prophetic symbolism : " Thou shalt no more be termed 
Forsaken ; neither shall thy land any more be termed 
Desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and 
thy land Beulah : for the Lord delighteth in thee, and 
thy land shall be married. '^ Eph. ii, 14, 15: "Yov 
this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 263 

heaven and earth is named /^ It will suffice to ask, 
Does this refer to the name Christian Church ? Is 
there here even a remote allusion to this name as an 
appellation of the Church? If it were conceded that 
reference here is had to the term Christian as a per- 
sonal designation of the individual followers of Christ, 
that would in no sense prove that the Church of God 
should be called by no other name than Christian 
Church, and certainly would give no warrant for the 
assumption of the name the Christian Church by any 
one small fraction of the body of Christ. The fact is, 
the expression ^^ of whom the whole family^n heaven 
and earth is named,^^ refers to the Father. Many ex- 
cellent ancient MSS. and versions omit the words '^ of 
our Lord Jesus Christ ^^ in verse 14. But the terms 
Father and family have a mutual relation to each other; 
they are correlative terms, and should be so construed 
in the interpretation of the text. Saints in heaven and 
saints on earth might properly be called Christians; but 
would Christian be a proper designation of the angels 
of God ? The term Christ is an official appellation, and 
belongs to him as our anointed prophet, priest, and king. 
The name referred to in the text is '' sons of God.'' 
1 John iii, 1 : ^' Behold, what manner of love the 
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called 
the sons of God.'' So also Gal. iv, 6, 7 : ^' And be- 
cause ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Where- 



264 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

fore thou art no more a servant^ but a son ; and if a 
son, then an heir of God through Christ/^ 

Thus we think the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
having the modesty, and also the Christian charity, to 
take a distinctive denominational appellation among the 
organizations that compose the Church of God, in so do- 
ing neither yields up their right to be called Christians, 
nor violates any mandate of the Scriptures ; while, on 
the contrary, those w^ho arrogate to themselves that 
name alone, put themselves in a place where other 
Christians are compelled to give them a distinctive 
appellation which may not be acceptable to them. 
It is certainly in the worst kind of taste for the fol- 
lowers of A. Campbell, or any other denomination, to 
style themselves the Christian Church. The writer, 
out of respect for his own personal rights, and out of 
courtesy to other Christian denominations, begs to 
be excused. 

Following this, there are several objections that 
they usually make to our book of Discipline and 
Articles of Religion, to which we will reply when the 
subject of Discipline and Creeds is considered — the 
objections not being made to the doctrines as false, but 
only to the form of their promulgation, they claiming 
that they are not enjoined in the Scriptures as mat- 
ters of faith. 

But Article VIII of our Articles of Religion is 
often by them held up as teaching a doctrine con- 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM, 265 

trary to the teaching of the Scriptures. The article 
reads : ^^ The condition of man^ after the fall of Adam 
is such that he can not turn and prepare himself, by 
his own natural strength and works, to faith, and call- 
ing upon God; wherefore we have no power to do 
good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without 
the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we 
may have a good will/^ 

The reason for their stout objection to this article 
is the fact that it teaches the immediate influence of 
the Divine Spirit and grace upon human hearts, and, 
as shown in former chapters, that they can not admit, 
without upsetting the very foundation-stones of Camp- 
bellism, baptism as a condition to justification, and its 
witness to the fact of justification; for if the Divine 
Spirit helps the sinner, why may he not witness to 
the believer? But in this respect the follow^ers of A. 
Campbell are more consistent, but less orthodox, than 
W'as their great teacher. He taught inherent de- 
pravity and human sinful helplessness. After speak- 
ing of Adam's transgression and its eflFects upon his 
race, he says : ^ '^ There is therefore a sin of our na- 
ture, as well as personal transgression. Some inap- 
positely call the sin of our nature our ' original sin,^ 
as if the sin of Adam was the personal oifense of all 
his children. True, indeed, it is ; our nature was cor- 
rupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted 



' Christian System," p. 28. 
23 



26G ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

to us, and hence that hereditary imbecility to do good, 
and that proneness to do evil, so universally apparent 
in all human beings. Let no man open his mouth 
against the transmission of moral distemper until he 
satisfactorily explain the fact that the special charac- 
teristic vices of parents appear in their children, as 
much as the color of their skin, their hair, or the con- 
tour of their faces. A disease in the moral constitu- 
tion of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical 
taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or 
human observation.^^ 

Here is language clearly asserting inherited de- 
pravity, — ^^ hereditary imbecility to do good, and 
proneness to do evil.^' Now, if such be the condition 
of the human heart, no mere appeal to the intellect 
will meet the demands of the case ; '^ hereditary imbe- 
cility^^ can only be overcome by the immediate influ- 
ence of* the Divine Spirit. AVith this agrees the 
teaching of the Scriptures in the use of such terms as 
express the utter helplessness of a race of sinners 
without immediate divine assistance, — such as ^^dead 
in trespasses and in sins ;^^ * ^' the whole head sick,'^ 
^^ the whole heart faint /^ f " enchained to the putre- 
fying body of sin.'^ % 

In inveighing against the doctrine of this Article of 
Religion, it is customary for these teachers to hold it up 
as teaching total depravity. The words total depravity 



* Enh. ii, 1. t Isa. i, 5. X Rom. vii, 24. 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 267 

have no existence in any Article of Religion of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church; and while in orthodox theology 
they have a very definite import, yet there is nothing in 
our Articles of Religion requiring our use of them, or a 
defense of them as a proper theological technic. The 
term, however, as defined by those that use it, simply 
means ^4iereditary imbecility to do good/^ a total 
bent and inclination to sin, so that the sinner, left to 
himself, would never turn to seek after righteousness. 
But man has not been left to himself; but provisions, 
gracious and ample, have been made for the salvation 
of the entire race, and the only question of difference 
between the followers of A. Campbell and Methodists 
is this : What constitutes these provisions ? They 
say they are the atonement and the word alone. 
Methodists say, in addition to these is a manifestation 
of the Spirit, given to every man to profit withal.^ 
They say because of man^s ^^ hereditary imbecility to 
good, and proneness to evil,^^ he needs the help of 
God. Mr, Braden f says : ^^ This teaches the doctrine 
of election and reprobation.^^ Let us see. Mr. Bra- 
den believes that the word of divine truth is the di- 
vine gracious provision for the salvation of men. 
If this alone, then only those who have it are elected 
to the gracious possibility of salvation. In other 
words, God has passed by to this date the greater 
part of the human race, making no provision what- 



♦1 Cor. xii, 7. t " Hughey and Braden Debate," p. 522. 



268 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

ever for them ; and if any of the heathen are saved, 
they are saved through a morality that is wholly 
their own. The Methodist Church believes that God 
has made it possible for every child of man to be 
saved who will use the grace given^ while Campbell- 
ism must either deny this^ or else save some outside 
of any manifestation of grace whatever. The simple 
truth is, the article asserts man's natural inability to a 
righteousness that will meet the divine requirements, 
and also indicates that a gracious ability is given unto 
him, that his salvation may be of ^' grace, and not of 
works;'' of God, and not of man. Man's work is sim- 
ply the employment of the grace supplied. 

That part of Article II of the Articles of Re- 
ligion which says Christ ^^ was crucified, dead, and 
buried, to reconcile his Father to us," is also very ve- 
hemently assailed by them. The animus of this antag- 
onism is found in the fact that it is thought that the 
doctrine of a divine side to the work of reconciliation 
leaves open a way of prayer to the sinner, and a wit- 
nessing spirit to the believer. Much of their oppo- 
sition is either founded upon a misapprehension of the 
import of the language here used, or is a mere con- 
tention about words. The article only asserts that 
Christ suffered and died to reconcile the administra- 
tion of divine justice to the pardon of our sin; that 
is, to "reconcile divine justice with divine mercy. 
Surely it will not be contended that Christ did not 
die to ^' make it possible for God to be just, and the 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 269 

justifier of sinners.'^* If it is contended that this 
propitiation of divine justice is in no sense a recon- 
ciliation of God to the sinner, then this is a question 
to be decided by an appeal to the Word of God. 
Though it is with some difficulty we get at the exact 
meaning of these persons, yet their methods of rea- 
soning lead to the conclusion that they mean to deny 
in toto the application of the term reconciliation in the 
plan of redemption to God ; that is, God was in no 
sense reconciled to man. He never was unrecon- 
ciled. What does the word reconcile mean? Web- 
ster defines it '' to bring together, to unite. ^^ There 
are two parties in every reconciliation, and they are 
only reconciled when they are brought into harmony. 
Can God be in a state of reconciliation with man in 
sin and willful disobedience? Can it be said that 
God is well pleased with him ? If not, then he needs 
to be reconciled to him by man's repentance and faith. 
The Scriptures teach that the w^ath of God abides on 
the unbeliever. John iii, 36 : ^^ He that believeth on 
the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth 
not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God 
abideth on him.'' Can God be said to be reconciled to 
that individual upon whom his wrath abides f But 
this shall be treated of more fully when we consider 
the individual sinner's reconciliation to God. 

The reconciliation in the article especially spoken of, 



^ Rom, iii, 26. 



270 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

is the recouciliation of the Father to man^s justification 
ill the sacrificial death of Christ. The fundamental idea 
contained in the word sacrifice is the placating of divine 
justice, and this placating is called in the Scriptures 
"making reconciliation for iniquity/' Daniel ix, 24: 
" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city to 
finish the transgression, and to make reconciliation for 
iniquity,^' This, without question, refers to the sac- 
rificial work of Christ, and that most certainly was 
made to divine justice. What, then, was reconciled 
on Calvary? Divine justice. The Hebrew word for 
reconcile is kaphar — to cover, to make atonement. 
It would be marvelously absurd to maintain that man 
is the party that is to be reconciled here. 

The word reconcile and its derivatives occur in 
the New Testament twelve times, where it signifies 
the restoration of man again to favor w^ith God. 
These are translations of four different Greek words, 
xazoDAaaco^ d,7zoxaTaXXdTTco, xazaXXayi^, DAaxoaac, The 
first three indicate or signify the change of relations 
brought about between God and the sinner. Our 
reconciliation is not spoken of until it is a reconcilia- 
tion in fact, by bringing the alienated parties to- 
gether. The first employment of the term reconcile 
{xaza/jAaaco) in reference to the relation in grace be- 
tween God and man, is in Rom. v, 10: "For if, 
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by 
the death of his Son ; much more, being reconciled, 
we shall be saved by his life.'' Now, w^hat was rec- 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 271 

onciled by the death of Christ? Most certainly di- 
vine justice; not man^ for this reconciliation took 
place when '' we were enemies/^ Reconciliation is 
the divine side of the work of Christ, salvation is 
our side ; that is, he reconciles God and saves us. 
In 2 Cor. V, 18, 19 : ^^And all things are of God, 
who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, 
and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, 
that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto 
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and 
hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.^^ 
Note that this reconciliation ^^hath^^ been completed 
through Jesus Christ. It therefore can not be the 
reconciliation of the sinner to God. Verse 19 de- 
fines this reconciliation ; to wit, ^' that God was in 
Christ reconciling the world unto himself^' When was 
this done? In the incarnation. Notice the past 
tense "was.^^ If the reconciliation were that of man, 
then it would be in the present tense. The past tense 
refers to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The recon- 
ciliation was in the past; the ^^ ministry ^^ of divine 
^' reconciliation^^ is future. Of like import are Eph. 
ii, 16 : ^^And that he might reconcile both unto God 
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity 
thereby ;^^ and Col. i, 20, 21: ^^And, having made 
peace through the blood of the cross, by him to rec- 
oncile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether 
they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And 
you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in 



272 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM, 

your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he recon- 
ciled in the body of his flesh through death/^ 

Now, in both of these quotations the reconciliation 
is by the cross, and is in the past tense. In Eph. ii, 
16, it is in the aorist subjunctive, and in Col. i, 20 in the 
aorist infinitive. This fact most conclusively demon- 
strates that it does not refer to the future reconcilia- 
tion of the sinner. Winer, in his "New Testament 
Grammar/^ says that it " is only in appearance that the 
aorist is used for the future. ^^ If, then, the reconcilia- 
tion took place in past time, through Christ's death 
and by the cross, it was not the sinner that was recon- 
ciled, for he is yet to be reconciled. It must there- 
fore be God who has been reconciled to the justifica- 
tion of the sinner. 

In Heb. ii, 17, we have it distinctly stated that 
Christ came to reconcile the Father. " Wherefore in 
all things it behooved him to be made like unto his 
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful 
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make recon- 
ciliation for the sins of the people.'' It will be ob- 
served that the word pertaining has been supplied by 
the translators, and is not in the text. It should read 
"a merciful and faithful high priest in things to God, 
to make reconciliation." The only way that they at- 
tempt to meet this text is by saying that reconcilia- 
tion is not the proper translation of the verb DAaxo/jta:, 
that it should be propitiation. But what is propitia- 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 273 

tion but a stronger term for the same fact — the recon- 
ciliation of divine justice to the pardon of man's sin? 

It in no wise meets the issues of the case to cite, 
as Mr. Braden does, and as other exponents of Camp- 
bellism do, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and such 
passages as John iii, 16: '^God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him might not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life/' For the question still remains, What was 
Christ given for ? What was propitiated by his death ? 
When these questions are answered, there will be the 
recognition of the fact that, before man could be saved, 
divine justice must be reconciled. 

But the inspiration of their strenuous objection to 
this Article of Religion is the belief that it teaches 
that God must be reconciled to each individual sinner 
through his (the sinner's) fulfillment of the conditions 
to salvation, and that the seeking of such reconcilia- 
tion opens the ^Yay for penitential, importunate prayer — 
a seeking of God with the whole heart. It is at this 
point of opposition that Methodist mourners' benches, 
anxious seats, inquiry meetings, seeking salvation, 
calling on the Lord for salvation, and the like, are 
assaulted and excoriated as a manifestation of folly — 
a course unwarranted by the Scriptures. Now, in 
numerous passages of Scripture we are taught that 
God is angry with the sinner. (Eph. ii, 3, and v, 
6 ; Col. iii, 6.) If angry, certainly not reconciled. 



274 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

Now, whatever will remove his righteous wrath, will 
reconcile God to the sinner. We are told in John 
iii, 36, that faith will do this. 

But the Savior, in Luke xviii, 9-14, related a par- 
able to show how God becomes propitious — is recon- 
ciled to the sinner — the Pharisee and the Publican. 
Notice the description of the prayer of the publican : 
^^And the publican, standing afar oflF, would not so 
much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon 
his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.^' 
Here is the representation of some very earnest seeking — 
seeking which nowadays incurs considerable criticism, 
contempt, and condemnation from these reformers. Let 
it be noticed again that the word translated ^' be merci- 
ful ^^ is DAaxoimc, which is translated by reconcile in 
Heb. ii, 1 7 ; and the verbal cognate of the noun llaafioz^ 
propitiation, in 1 John ii, 2, and iv, 10. If, therefore, it 
had been translated ^' God be reconciled to me a sin- 
ner,^^ it would have been far more in harmony with 
the Scriptural use of the w^ord. The marginal read- 
ing in the Revised Version has it '' be propitiated to 
me the sinner.^^ So that a crying to God for personal 
reconciliation has the divinest of all sanctions. 

With the teaching of this parable agree other 
teachings of the Savior concerning the value of inter- 
cessory prayer to the seeker of righteousness. In this 
same chapter he spake another parable to teach the 
value of importunity in prayer, ^* to this end, that men 
ought always to pray and not to faint /^ thei] follows 



CAMPBELLITE OBJECTIONS TO METHODISM. 275 

the parable of the Unjust Judge and the Widow, 
which, if it teaches anything, teaches that God will 
wait, no doubt for the seeker's good, to be importuned. 
With this agrees Luke xiii, 24, when the Master 
says : ^^ Strive [original, agonize] to enter into the 
strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to 
enter in, and shall not be able/' Also Matt, v, 6 : 
^* Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after 
righteousness, for they shall be filled.'' A hungering 
and thirsting after righteousness, that is not character- 
ized by earnest, importunate prayer, would be exceed- 
ingly peculiar. 

All this opposition is predicated upon the theory 
that it is the duty of the penitent believer not to 
pray, but to obey. But the Word of God teaches him to 
pray, both in the examples above given, and in numer- 
ous clear and explicit precepts. Psa. xxvii, 8 : ^* When 
thou said&t. Seek ye my face ; my heart said. Thy face, 
Lord, will I seek ;" Isa. Iv, 6 : ^^ Seek ye the Lord 
while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is 
near;" Lam. iii, 25 ; Amos v, 4 and 6 ; Acts xvii, 27, 
and others. With this agrees the comprehensive 
promise given by the apostle in Rom. x, 13, and 
quoted from Joel ii, 32 : ^^ Whosoever shall call upon 
the name of the Lord shall be saved." If this is not 
warrant sufficient for the penitent seeker's earnest 
praying, it is hard to conceive what would be suffi- 
cient for these teachers. 

But it is asked, ^^ Is not God willing to forgive 



276 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

whenever the conditions are complied with?'^ Most 
surely. But mark, when the conditions are complied 
Avilh, when repentance is genuine, thorough, complete ; 
that is, godly sorrow for sin, faithful confession of sin, 
willingness to make all possible reparation for sin. 
The man who has injured his neighbor in person, 
property, or character, does not truly repent until he 
is willing to make it all right, so far as is in his 
power. After this, implicit faith in Jesus Christ. 
And it is right and wise for God to withhold the 
blessing until all the conditions are fulfilled, until the 
Avhole heart is enlisted in seeking and in the faith. 
If it requires importunacy in prayer to bring the soul 
of the disciple of Christ into the proper attitude of 
submission and faith, is it not likely to require self- 
examination, earnest seeking, and fervent prayer, to 
lead the seeker to that completeness of repentance 
that is called godly sorrow, and that implicitness of 
trust called faith of the heart? In the sinner's con- 
version '' faith towards [or upon] the Lord Jesus 
Christ ^^ must crown repentance toward God. He who 
ridicules intense earnestness in seeking pardon of sin, 
lias but an excedingly limited idea of what God re- 
quires of personal self-surrender in order to a godly life. 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 277 



CHAPTER XXI. 

CAMPBKLLISM ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 

Attention has already been called to the fact 
that Alexander Campbell at first started out with the 
laudable purpose of bringing the Christian denomina- 
tions into unity. The first organized eflPort made in 
this direction was in August, 1809, by his father, 
Thomas Campbell, and resulted in the formation of 
^' The Christian Association of Washington, ^^ * in 
Washington County, Pennsylvania. This association 
promulgated a ^^Declaration ^' of principles, or an ^' Ad- 
dress,^^ as it was styled, which, to the writer, as a bond 
of union, has, as far as it goes, all the characteristics 
of a creed ; and when it proclaims in the concluding 
sentence that nothing shall be required of any one as 
a ^^ matter of Christian faith or duty, for which there 
can not be expressly produced a ^Thus saith the 
Lord,^ either in expressed terms or by approved 
precedent,'^ the question naturally arises. Who will 
be the judge w^hen a ^^ Thus saith the Lord,^^ 
either directly or by ^^ approved precedent,^' is pro- 
duced ? It is right here where Christian creeds have 



^''Richardson's Memoirs of A. Campbell," p. 240. 



278 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

had their origin. It is a question of considerable 
possible disagreement as to what is an ^' approved 
precedent ;'^ for all are compelled to concede that ob- 
ligation rests not alone upon a specific and explicit 
^^Thus saith the Lord/' but upon inspired example, 
reasonable inference, and the analogy of faith. 

There is no doubt but the purpose originally was 
to bring about Christian union, and establish a plat- 
form upon which all that do truly love the Lord Jesus 
Christ may stand. But Mr. Campbell was a man of 
strong convictions, and it was not long after the for- 
mation of his societies, until it was manifest that he 
was simply the founder of another denomination, that 
took the peculiar type of its faith from the teachings 
of its founder. The marvel is, however, that the 
self-deception has been perpetuated in the belief that 
they offer a basis broad enough for all true Christians 
to unite upon, and that they are any thing more than 
another denomination, with a peculiar creed, so nar- 
row that nine-tenths of the Christian world can not 
subscribe to it. The facts prove this ; either the 
Christian world in the main are hopelessly blind or 
peculiarly obstinate, or the oral creed of Campbellism 
is too circumscribed for anything like Christian unity. 

But Mr. Campbell was, and his followers, treading 
exactly in his foot-steps, are wont to inveigh against 
liuman creeds. Mr. Campbell, in his debate with 
Professor Rice, affirmed the following proposition : 
" Human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 279 

are necessarily heretical and schismatical/^ This^ in 
substance^ the exponents of his doctrines are to-day 
ready to affirm. It is, however, entirely unnecessary 
to follow them through their argument against creeds; 
for these arguments are, by parity of reasoning, proven 
to be fallacious by their own promulgation and en- 
forcement of a human creed. It is only a question 
between an oral and a written creed. The followers 
of Campbell have a very narrow oral creed, which 
they thrust at the individual who seeks admission 
among them — a creed that is very far from having 
any ^' Thus saith the Lord ^^ for either one of its two 
fundamental requisitions, ^^ Confession that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God,^' and immersion in order to remis- 
sion of sin. 

Creed is from credo, I believe. Now, I can print this 
belief in short, formulated propositions, or I cail simply 
publish it orally ; but neither printing nor oral pub- 
lication is necessary to make it a creed. It is a creed 
when it is a matter of belief. Most Christians print, 
in Confessions of Faith or Articles of Religion, what 
they believe the Bible to teach in certain matters re- 
garded as fundamental or essential. This A. Camp- 
bell and his followers refuse to do. Is what they 
believe and require, because unpublished in a printed 
confession, any more the truth necessarily than what 
others believe? 

Every one of Mr. CampbelPs arguments against 
human creeds lies with equal force against his unpub- 



280 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

lished creed ; for by this unpublished creed his people 
will arraign^ try^ and exclude from their fellowship 
the individual who should teach otherwise among 
them. Take^ for an example, the minister of the gos- 
pel among them who should come to the belief that 
sprinkling and pouring are proper modes of baptism, 
and go to preaching the same. Would they not ex- 
clude him, or sever connection with him? From 
what stand-point would this be done ? From that of 
an oral creed, which certainly they can only claim to 
be their interpretation of the Scripture. The only 
difference between them and others consists in this, 
that the interpretation in other Churches has been 
formulated beforehand in a printed statement; in their 
case it is a written consensus of opinion among them, 
found in their doctrinal authors. 

It has already been said that to every one who 
comes seeking admission among them they present 
their creed, asking of them a certain verbal confes- 
sion, and immersion for a certain purpose. And this 
creed, though of few articles, is so narrow that nine- 
tenths or more of as devout, holy, faithful, self-sacri- 
ficing Christians as are to be found in the world, will 
be excluded by it. Without fear of successful con- 
tradiction, it is the narrowest creed of all Protestant 
Christendom. It will even exclude the honest Baptist, 
though a believer in exclusive immersion. 

The confession, ^^ I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God,^^ is nowhere in the Scriptures required 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 281 

as a condition to salvation. The only place that in 
this form it exists is in Acts viii^ 37, and this passage 
is rejected by the best commentators as spurious, and 
is not to be found in the Revised Version. Let it 
be remarked that the expression of the belief that 
"Jesus Christ is the Son of God^^ is not saving faith, 
but is a mere article of intellectual belief. Wicked 
men may, and some wicked men do, believe this. 
Devils believe it. There is a wide difference between 
this mere act of intellectual faith, and "believing 
on the Son of God.^^ (John ix, 35.) The propo- 
sition that " Jesus Christ is the Son of God ^^ is 
incomprehensible by mortals, for it involves the un- 
derstanding of the mode of Divine existence. Mr. 
Braden, * in opposing Article I of our Articles of 
Religion, says concerning its affirmation of the Trinity 
in Unity : " The Scriptures declare there is Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. These, then, are in some sense 
one ; but they nowhere teach or explain how they are one. 
I do not know how they are one. I do not believe they 
are one ; for I know nothing about it, and lean not be- 
lieve what I do not understand.'^ The italics are given 
to call attention to the principle laid down. If faith 
must be an intelligent understanding of the subject 
believed, then the belief that " Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God '' is a requirement utterly impossible. jN^ow, 
while we do not agree with the idea that a proposi- 



* Hughey and Braden Debate/' p. 518. 
24 



282 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

tion that is not comprehensible, can not be the subject 
of belief, yet it is true that the Scriptures do not require 
the belief of an incomprehensible proposition in order 
to salvation. To ^^ believe on the Son of God^^ is to 
rest the faith of the heart for salvation on this divine 
personage whom the Bible calls " the Son of God.^^ 

The second article of this creed is to believe that 
immersion alone is baptism ; and the third is to be- 
lieve that it is a necessary condition for the remission 
of sins. Suppose, now, to illustrate the exclusiveness 
of this creed, a person who believes that baptism is 
necessary to the remission of sins, should believe that 
sprinkling is baptism, could he pass the narrow doc- 
trinal gate ? Who believes he could ? Suppose, again, 
he should believe immersion is baptism, but at the 
same time believe it is not a condition to the remis- 
sion of sin. He probably would pass because of being 
immersed; if so, it illustrates that the matter of form 
is omnipotent in this scheme, while the matter of be- 
lief is entirely unimportant. We are compelled to 
this view, because Alexander Campbell himself was 
not baptized with reference to obtaining the remission 
of sins by baptism ; and also Baptist baptism is accepted 
by them to-day. Could any creed put salvation more 
absolutely in the outward form ? In fact, immersion 
may go before faith, before repentance, and be for any 
other religious purpose, and the individual afterward 
get the benefit of it as a saving ordinance, but it must 
not be omitted. 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 283 

But the creed of any denomination is not its printed 
and published Articles of Religion; for these are 
usually but partial^ and limited to affirmations antago- 
nizing what were believed to be errors at the time of 
their formulation. For example, the doctrines of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church are not all found in the 
Articles of Religion. But the doctrines of the various 
denominations are to be found in the general consensus 
of their doctrinal writers. Campbellism has a distinct 
and marked consensus. No leader in Protestantism 
in modern times has more completely stamped his 
peculiar doctrinal beliefs, and their mode of inculca- 
tion and defense, upon his followers, than has this 
man. It would not be difficult to write out his and 
their creed from his controversial affirmations and de- 
nials. It is true that all of this creed is not made a 
bond of union or communion among his followers ; 
but enough of it is used to put a very specific de- 
nominational stamp upon the communicants of their 
Churches, and to make a doctrinal shibboleth, which 
is readily recognized anywhere, and discriminated 
from other Christian beliefs. The writer has fre- 
quently had occasion to note how completely in forms 
of statement, methods of argumentation, and interpre- 
tation, his followers conform to the model set for them 
by this their great leader, and yet no people have more 
to say about the trammels of creed and preconceived 
opinions. It is quite amusing at times to those who are 
familiar with Mr. CampbelPs writings, to hear these 



284 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

men proclaim their entire independence of human 
creeds while they are retailing even his exegetical 
blunders. 

We have now shown that Campbellism has a creed 
in the consensus of its writers, and in the uniform 
usage of its societies — a creed that^ in some of its doc- 
trinal requirements, will bar a large part of the Chris- 
tian Church out of its societies, and that in others 
will prohibit its teachers from inculcating among them 
numerous doctrines and beliefs held by other Chris- 
tians ; such as infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring 
as baptism, the necessity for the immediate witness of 
the Spirit, and the like. 

Of course they claim that they condemn these by 
the Word of God. But who is the interpreter of the 
Word of God? They, themselves. And this is by 
implication to claim infallibility for their interpreta- 
tion. It is a little singular that this Church that be- 
gins with a doctrine of salvation by works, must land 
at least in another of the claims of the Church of 
Rome, the infallibility of her doctrinal opinions. 

There is no doubt but human creeds have been al- 
together too minute in their attempted definitions of 
doctrine, and too exacting ; and that efforts were made 
to define some things that were incapable of defini- 
tion, because beyond human comprehension; still this 
concession does not change the fact that creeds that 
are purely and only human — such because they are 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 285 

men^s opinions — must be made tests of faith and bonds 
of union and communion. Campbellism has just such 
a creed, and it is not any the less effectively used for 
this purpose, even though it is only to be found in the 
consensus of its writers. And yet their pulpits un- 
ceasingly ring with denunciations against the tyranny 
of creeds and their hindrance to Church union. The 
altogether nonchalant air with which they present 
their doctrinal scheme and Church polity as the one of 
divine institution, and as offering the only basis of 
Church union, is exceedingly surprising to people 
who have not the same confidence in their deductions 
that they seem to have. Their evangelistic propagan- 
dists generally dwell long and earnestly upon the 
evils of sectarian divisions, the divisive influence of 
printed creeds, the enthralling character of disciplinary 
requirements, and the sinfulness of sectarian names ; 
and with an assurance that is truly amazing they 
will invite people to leave or avoid the sects, and join 
the Christian Churchy as though their small organi- 
zation of but yesterday defined the whole limits of the 
Church of Christ. What a comment on sectarian 
blindness ! 

Again, the same infallible certitude that they claim 
for their doctrinal teachings, they likewise claim for 
their Church polity. Their Church polity is what 
might be styled independent ; that is, each local society 
has absolute control over all its affairs, both as to doc- 



286 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

trine and government. Members pass between these 
separate societies by '' letters of formal introduction/^ * 
The rulers of these societies are called by them '^ eld- 
ers/^ and they have about the entire government in 
their hands, except as they find it necessary to appeal, 
to the congregation upon any question ^of general 
moment. 

The question of Church polity is one that has 
been a subject of much discussion. This we do not 
intend to enter into. We believe there is no divinely 
instituted form of Church government. God has left 
this in its details to the Church; and whether it shall 
be connectional, as the Methodist Episcopal and the 
Presbyterian Churches, or Congregational, or Inde- 
pendent, Ave believe to be a matter of indifference. 
But it does, however, look reasonable that the Church, 
being a divinely ordained organization for the evan- 
gelization of the world, should have throughout that 
organic bond that will most effectually bring all its 
parts into unified effort for this purpose. Independ- 
ency certainly can not do this, only as it organizes 
societies independently of the Church, and of which 
the Church at large is itself independent. 

While the polity of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is subject to modification by its legislative 
body, the General Conference, the polity of the Church 
founded by Alexander Campbell must remain forever 



'* Christian System," ch. '* Christian Discipline." 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE, 287 

unchanged, for that is claimed by them to be of di- 
vine appointment. Should any bodies springing up 
among them come to believe that the polity might be 
lawfully changed, there would be two Churches, each 
claiming to be the Christian Church. Mr. Campbell 
has been the sole legislator for this Church. He is the 
founder of its economy, as well as the author of its 
doctrines. ^' The Christian Discipline,^^ contained in 
^^The Christian System,^^ pages 85 to 90, lays down 
the discipline of this Church, that by which it must 
be governed for all time; for it was evolved by 
Mr. Campbell out of the New Testament. If so, 
it must be forever and unchangeably obligatory, 
according to their teaching. Is not this putting 
a great amount of confidence in one man? To-day 
the exact form of discipline presented in the '^ Chris- 
tian System ^^ by this one man is the absolute law of 
the Church. And yet they are wont to claim they have 
no discipline. It is true their societies have never 
adopted formally any form of discipline. Why? Be- 
cause, in all essential matters of government, that was 
evolved out of the Word, according to their belief 
and teachings by Alexander Campbell, and all that is 
necessary now for them to do, is to go to the '' Chris- 
tian System,^^ and ascertain what are its directions, 
when needed. 

Now, suppose that, in some future period, some so- 
cieties among them come to the conclusion that this 
discipline is not of divine ordain ment, but that there 



288 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

may be, and ought to be, some modifications of it; 
what is left for them but the establishment of another 
^^ Christian Church?" 

The writer is aware of the fact that they, to some 
extent, recognize the law of expediency ; but only in 
minor things; not in the matter of Church govern- 
ment, such as the entire independency of each society, 
the authority of the elders, and the exclusion of mem- 
bers for immorality or heresy. Again, even in mat- 
ters of expediency Mr. Campbell has furnished then) 
with disciplinary rules that they uniformly find it ex-^ 
pedient to observe. Methodists no more carefully 
follow the forms of order in business laid down in our 
Book of Discipline than the followers of Campbell 
follow his directions in matters merely expedient. 

The preachers of this denomination are accus- 
tomed to hold up to ridicule and public condemnation 
the system of probationship in the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, a system merely prudential, and that 
does not deprive any one of any of the spiritual priv- 
ileges belonging to Church membership, such as the 
means of grace, the sacrament, and the helps of Chris- 
tian fellowship; but only limits as to official priv- 
ileges, such as holding certain offices, sitting in cases 
of Church trial, etc. ; and accords the right of with- 
drawal without question, if dissatisfied with doctrines 
or polity, and accords the Church the right, without 
formal trial, if she is not satisfied with the Christian 
life or character of the probationer, to dismiss him. 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 289 

This has been variously characterized as the " back 
porch ^' or ^^ kitchen/^ or ^^ anteroom ^^ of the Meth- 
odist Church. After all this, would it be thought a 
matter within the range of possibility that this Church 
has a system of probatiQiiship also ? Yet such is the 
fact — an indefinite probationship or novitiate. In 
their Discipline, " Christian System/^ page 88, '' Chris- 
tian Discipline,^' section 10, we have the following: 

^^The whole community act, and ought to act, in 
receiving and excluding persons; but in the aggregate 
it can never become judges of oifenses and a tribunal 
of trial. Such an institution never was set up by Di- 
vine authority. No community is composed only of 
wise and discreet full-grown men. The Christian 
Church engrosses old men, young men, and babes in 
Christ. Shall the voice of a babe be heard or counted 
as a vote in a case oj discipline f What is the use of 
bishops in a Church, if all are to rule ; of judges, if 
all are to be judges of fact and law? No wonder that 
broils and heart-burnings and scandals of all sorts 
disturb those communities ruled by a democracy of 
the whole — where everything is to be judged in pub- 
lic and full assembly. Such is not the Christian sys- 
tem. It ordains that certain persons shall judge and 
rule, and that ' all things shall be done decently and 
in order.' " 

I have italicized to call attention to the recogni- 
tion of mere novitiates in the Church and the limita- 
tions put on them. Limitations, the exact counter- 



290 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

part of those put upon probationers in the Meth- 
odist Church. But Methodists never regarded it a 
matter of Divine injunction, but only of Church ex- 
pediency. 

Mr. Wesley laid down at the head of the " Gen- 
eral Rules ^^ of the societies formed by him, the only 
true basis of Christian unity; namely, ^^A desire to 
flee the wrath to come and to be saved from their 
sins, and an evidencing of such desire by an avoid- 
ance of all manner of evil, and doing good in every 
possible way.^^ The General Rules he wrote out are 
rules of Christian morality. He laid down no doc- 
trinal test, as did Alexander Campbell; much less did 
he require conformity to a mere ordinance, in one 
special form, as a condition to Christian fellowship 
and also a condition to salvation. Mr. Wesley^s 
"General Rules ^^ could unite all Christians in one, 
through seeking after righteousness, until they come 
to unity in knowledge of the truth. Mr. CampbelPs 
scheme would exclude, by a mere ritualistic perform- 
ance, the vast majority of the Christian world, and 
keep them apart until they could see eye to eye in the 
mode of the observance of an ordinance. When their 
attention is called to this fact, with sublime innocency 
they tell us they require this because the Bible re- 
quires it; at once, by an inevitable implication, in the 
face of the honest convictions of a majority of Chris- 
tians, claiming that their interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures is infallible. 



ON CREEDS AND DISCIPLINE. 291 

Again, they are continually descanting upon union 
and Christian liberty, while, at the same time, they in- 
sist upon union in their own terms, and refuse to in- 
telligent, conscientious, free, moral agents the deter- 
mination of the mode in which, and the end for which, 
they shall receive a mere ritualistic ordinance. For 
centuries the Christian w^orld has been contending 
about the mode, design, and import of water baptism; 
the best of Christians have been enlisted upon all 
sides of this question. The grace of God, in its effect 
on Christian character, life, and spirituality, has made 
no distinction among the disputants. Affusionists — 
pa^dobaptists — have manifested just as much faith, de- 
votion, self-sacrificing, and have had just as much 
success, have died just as triumphant, as have those 
who fought for exclusive immersion and adult bap- 
tism alone. And yet, despite these indisputable facts, 
in this nineteenth century, there springs up a denom- 
ination that maintains that the only bond of Christian 
nnity is immersion as a necessary condition to the re- 
mission of sins. In other words, that very ritualistic 
symbolism that lias been the cause of more discussion, 
and about which there has been more honest division 
of opinion in the Church of all ages, is at once 
definitely settled by them in one mode, for one 
design, and to one import; and the Christian world 
are called upon to stop their disputing and come 
forward and accept the final settlement of this ques- 
tion. It is doubtful if it is possible to find 



292 ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM. 

another example of more aiiclacious dogmatism, of 
more profound confidence in their theories, and, 
necessarily because of these, uncharitableness to- 
wards other Christians, than this. And this is 
Campbellism ! 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proc( 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologii 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVAT 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 



^313 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 645 355 2 



Al^Vfi^ 



